mcp-fabric-api

dataflow_get_refresh_status

Read-only

Check the status of a dataflow refresh job in Microsoft Fabric. Provide workspace, dataflow, and job instance IDs to retrieve current refresh state.

Instructions

Get the status of a dataflow refresh 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>",
      "dataflowId": "<dataflowId>",
      "jobInstanceId": "<jobInstanceId>"
    },
    "name": "dataflow_get_refresh_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dataflowId`	Yes	The dataflow ID
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace ID
`jobInstanceId`	Yes	The job instance ID from dataflow_refresh

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating that it gets status. No information about response shape, status values, or polling behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 low-complexity read-only getter with fully documented required parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no mention of the relationship to dataflow_refresh in the description, an agent is missing useful context about the expected return value and the workflow position.

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 parameters are already documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema covers this adequately, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the status of a dataflow refresh job'). It is immediately distinct from siblings like dataflow_refresh, which initiates a refresh, and dataflow_get, which retrieves dataflow metadata.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention that this tool should be used after dataflow_refresh, how polling might work, or when an alternative like dataflow_get would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server