Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-fabric-api

mcp-fabric-api

by mkoziel2000
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

copy_job_list_runs

Read-only

Retrieve all run instances for a copy job in a Fabric workspace. Use workspace and copy job IDs to list execution history for monitoring or troubleshooting.

Instructions

List all run instances for 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_list_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
copyJobIdYesThe copy job ID
workspaceIdYesThe workspace ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'all run instances' scope but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or returned fields, which remains a gap for a list operation.

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?

A single focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb and resource, earning every word.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter read-only tool, the description plus schema and annotations is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only notable omission is return-value details, but no output schema exists to make that a hard requirement.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for workspaceId and copyJobId. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('run instances for a copy job'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like copy_job_get_run_status or copy_job_list, though 'run instances' helps narrow the meaning.

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 intended use is implied by 'List all run instances for a copy job' – an agent can infer when to call it. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer copy_job_get_run_status for a single run or copy_job_list for the jobs themselves.

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