mcp-fabric-api

copy_job_run

Triggers an on-demand run of a specified copy job in Microsoft Fabric to start data copying immediately.

Instructions

Run a copy job on demand

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_run"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether the tool blocks until completion, returns a run ID asynchronously, or requires the copy job to be in a certain state before running. Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing about the operation's behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and usage context noted in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an action-oriented tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a run ID, whether it should be followed by a status poll, or how long the run might take. Sibling tools like copy_job_get_run_status suggest this is a multi-step workflow, but the description doesn't explain that.

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 both copyJobId and workspaceId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters interact or what values are expected.

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 'Run a copy job on demand' states a specific verb (Run), a resource (copy job), and a qualifier (on demand), making the tool's core purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like copy_job_get_run_status or copy_job_cancel_run, but the action of triggering a run is distinct enough.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for ad-hoc execution while scheduled runs might be managed elsewhere, nor does it point to copy_job_get_run_status for monitoring the resulting run.

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

Deploy Server