powerbi-orchestrator-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

edit_report_visual

Modify a Power BI report visual by changing its chart type, fields, formatting, layout, alt text, or visibility on a PBIR page.

Instructions

Modify a visualContainer in a PBIR report page (type, fields, formatting, layout).

Use this tool when the user asks to:

Edit, reformat, or resize a specific chart/visual on a report page.
Change visual fields, bindings, alt text, or visibility.

Args: pbip_path: Path to the root .pbip directory. page_name: Name of the page containing the visual. visual_id: Unique ID of the visualContainer to edit. type: New visual type if changing (e.g. "barChart", "lineChart", "card"). fields_json: Optional dict or JSON string specifying field bindings to update. format_json: Optional dict or JSON string specifying formatting options. position_json: Optional dict or JSON string with x, y, width, height layout. alt_text: New alt text for accessibility. is_hidden: Whether to hide the visualContainer.

Returns: Dict with success status, changes applied, and page path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No
`alt_text`	No
`is_hidden`	No
`page_name`	Yes
`pbip_path`	Yes
`visual_id`	Yes
`fields_json`	No
`format_json`	No
`position_json`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.11.0Oct 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / fields_json / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / format_json / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / position_json / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (success status, changes applied, page path), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility of edits, validation/error behavior, or what happens to fields not specified. Adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loads the core purpose, then offers a tight when-to-use block, an Args list, and a Returns line. Given nine undocumented parameters, the length is justified and every line earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still gives a concise summary. Combined with full parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all nine args: root .pbip path, page name, visual ID, new visual type with examples ('barChart', 'lineChart', 'card'), and the fields/format/position JSON blobs including accepted shapes (dict or JSON string; x/y/width/height). This adds substantial meaning the bare schema lacks.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Modify) and resource (a visualContainer in a PBIR report page) and enumerates the scope (type, fields, formatting, layout). An agent can immediately see this is the visual-editing tool, though it doesn't explicitly name which siblings it is not (e.g. design_report_page_from_requirements).

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this tool when the user asks to:' block with concrete triggers (edit/reformat/resize a chart, change fields/bindings/alt text/visibility). Clear usage context, but no explicit when-not or named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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