mcp-fabric-api

deployment_pipeline_assign_workspace

Assign a workspace to a deployment pipeline stage to enable controlled content deployment across environments.

Instructions

Assign a workspace to a deployment pipeline stage

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": {
      "pipelineId": "<pipelineId>",
      "stageId": "<stageId>",
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>"
    },
    "name": "deployment_pipeline_assign_workspace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stageId`	Yes	The stage ID
`pipelineId`	Yes	The deployment pipeline ID
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace ID to assign

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 description merely restates the core mutation without disclosing behavioral details such as whether an existing workspace assignment is replaced, whether stages must be empty before assignment, or any pipeline state constraints. Annotations already convey that it is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description adds little beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, object, and target in the most compact useful form.

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 three-parameter mutation, the basics are present: the action is stated and the schema fully documents parameters and required fields. However, the description omits any usage context or exclusions, so an agent gets no help with edge cases like existing assignments or relationship to adjacent pipeline operations.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description, so the tool description need not repeat them. It adds no extra meaning, but none is required given the complete schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assign') and states the resource and target ('a workspace to a deployment pipeline stage'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling unassign_workspace and deploy operations. It is immediately actionable.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives; for instance, it does not mention that unassign_workspace removes an assignment or that deploy is needed to push changes. Choosing this over siblings is left to tool-name inference.

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

Deploy Server