mcp-fabric-api

copy_job_delete

Destructive

Delete a copy job from a Microsoft Fabric workspace by providing the workspace ID and copy job ID. Removes the copy job to clean up resources.

Instructions

Delete a copy job

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>",
      "copyJobId": "<copyJobId>"
    },
    "name": "copy_job_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`copyJobId`	Yes	The copy job ID
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the delete operation. It does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects, whether running jobs are affected, or any required permissions.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the operation and is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter delete operation with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe what the return value or success/failure behavior looks like, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both required parameters (workspaceId and copyJobId). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden effectively, yielding the baseline score.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a copy job'), making the operation unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from the many sibling tools that operate on other resource types and from non-delete copy_job operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_job_cancel_run or copy_job_update. The description states only what it does, not the context or conditions for choosing it.

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

Deploy Server