powerbi-orchestrator-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

promote_in_pipeline

Promote Microsoft Fabric deployment pipeline artifacts across dev, test, and prod stages, with optional pre-promotion quality gates and dry-run validation before live moves.

Instructions

Promote artifacts across Microsoft Fabric Deployment Pipeline stages.

Use this tool when the user asks to:

Promote or move items between Fabric deployment stages (e.g. dev to test, test to prod).
Run pre-promotion quality gates before moving items.

Args: pipeline_id: Fabric deployment pipeline ID (UUID). source_stage: Source stage ("dev", "test", "prod"). target_stage: Target stage ("test", "prod"). items: Optional list of specific item IDs to promote. Promotes all if omitted. dry_run: If True (DEFAULT), validate stages and gate checks without triggering actual promotion. Pass dry_run=False explicitly to promote for real — this moves live artifacts between stages.

Returns: Dict with promotion status, gate outcomes, and affected items.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`items`	No
`dry_run`	No
`pipeline_id`	Yes
`source_stage`	No	dev
`target_stage`	No	test

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.0Oct 17, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / dry_run / default
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that dry_run defaults to True, that gates/stage validation run without promoting in that mode, and explicitly warns that dry_run=False 'moves live artifacts between stages.' That is precisely the destructive-path disclosure an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

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-loaded purpose sentence followed by a scannable when-to-use list and an Args block. Every line carries information; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists so the Returns block is technically redundant, though harmless and mildly useful. For a 5-param mutation tool with no annotations, the definition covers purpose, usage, param semantics and the dangerous default; only auth/permission prerequisites are absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the 5 params is explained — UUID format for pipeline_id, allowed stage values for source/target, the omitted=promote-all semantics of items, and the validate-vs-execute semantics of dry_run. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Promote') and resource ('artifacts across Microsoft Fabric Deployment Pipeline stages'), which separates it from generic deploy/apply siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer (e.g. deploy_to_workspace vs apply_plan), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The 'Use this tool when the user asks to' bullets give clear triggering conditions (stage-to-stage promotion, pre-promotion gate checks). It never states when NOT to use it or which sibling handles the adjacent cases, so the routing half of the guidance is missing.

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