Skip to main content
Glama
berriosb

powerbi-orchestrator-mcp

by berriosb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

connect_target

Connect to a Power BI Desktop session, Fabric workspace, PBIP folder, or PBIX file and start an orchestrator session for inspecting or modifying Power BI assets.

Instructions

Connect to a Power BI target and initialize an orchestrator session.

Use this tool when the user asks to:

  • Connect to a Power BI Desktop session, Fabric workspace, PBIP folder, or PBIX file.

  • Start an interactive session to inspect or modify Power BI assets.

Args: target_type: One of "pbi_desktop", "fabric_workspace", "pbip_folder", "pbix_file". target_ref: Reference path (for PBIP/PBIX) or workspace UUID (for Fabric). auth_mode: "interactive" (browser login) or "service_principal". When omitted, PBI_AUTH_MODE is used, falling back to "interactive". tenant_id: Azure AD tenant ID (required when auth_mode is service_principal).

Returns: ConnectResult with session_id, engines_available status, and any diagnostic warnings.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
auth_modeNo
tenant_idNo
target_refYes
target_typeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
warningsNo
session_idYes
engines_availableYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.23.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / auth_mode / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / auth_mode / default
      Previous value: -"interactive"New value: +null
    • removedInput schema / properties / auth_mode / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that authentication mode falls back to the PBI_AUTH_MODE env var and then to "interactive", that tenant_id is mandatory for service-principal auth, and that the call establishes a session that returns engines_available and diagnostic warnings. It does not address session lifetime, idempotency of repeated connects, or whether the operation mutates any remote state, which keeps it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by tight trigger bullets, Args, and Returns sections — easy to scan. The Returns block duplicates information already available in the output schema, so it doesn't fully earn its space, but overall there is little waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter session-bootstrap tool with an output schema present, nearly everything an agent needs is stated: target types, auth paths, required env fallbacks, and conditional requirements. The single unresolved point is how target_ref should be supplied for pbi_desktop, a gap that could cause a malformed first call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the allowed target_type values, explains target_ref differs by type (path for PBIP/PBIX, workspace UUID for Fabric), and gives auth_mode options plus default precedence. The only gap is that target_ref is left unexplained for pbi_desktop, which is precisely the kind of ambiguity an agent would hit at call time.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair ("Connect to a Power BI target and initialize an orchestrator session") and then enumerates the four target kinds it accepts. No sibling in the list performs connection/session setup, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

An explicit "Use this tool when the user asks to" block lists concrete trigger scenarios (Desktop session, Fabric workspace, PBIP folder, PBIX file, interactive inspect/modify). It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing to a follow-on sibling, but the positive context is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools