mcp-fabric-api

copy_job_get_run_status

Read-only

Retrieve the status of a Microsoft Fabric copy job run by providing the workspace ID, copy job ID, and job instance ID to monitor progress or troubleshoot failures.

Instructions

Get the status of a copy job run

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>",
      "jobInstanceId": "<jobInstanceId>"
    },
    "name": "copy_job_get_run_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`copyJobId`	Yes	The copy job ID
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace ID
`jobInstanceId`	Yes	The job instance ID from copy_job_run

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral detail beyond the obvious read-only status lookup, so it is consistent but not enriching.

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 compact sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it appropriately sized for a simple status lookup tool.

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 simple three-parameter read-only status tool, the description combined with the fully documented schema is nearly complete. The only minor absence is a note about polling behavior or status values, but the annotations and unambiguous name make this a small 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%, with workspaceId, copyJobId, and jobInstanceId each described. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the baseline applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a copy job run'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_job_get, copy_job_list_runs, and copy_job_run. An agent can tell what this tool does at a glance.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage after a copy job run has been started, especially because the schema notes that jobInstanceId comes from copy_job_run, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_job_list_runs. Usage is inferable but not directly guided.

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

Deploy Server