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

mcp-fabric-api

by mkoziel2000
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

deployment_pipeline_delete

Destructive

Delete a deployment pipeline from Microsoft Fabric by supplying its pipeline ID, eliminating unused automation resources.

Instructions

Delete a deployment pipeline

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>"
    },
    "name": "deployment_pipeline_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pipelineIdYesThe deployment pipeline ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description merely restates the delete action without adding behavioral context. It does not disclose irreversibility, cascading effects on stages or workspaces, or any authorization requirements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices potentially useful context in favor of brevity.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the schema and annotations cover the essential invocation details. However, the description omits clarification about deletion effects, return behavior, and how it differs from the similar-sounding pipeline_delete, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, pipelineId, documented as 'The deployment pipeline ID'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Delete') and a specific resource type ('deployment pipeline'), which clearly conveys the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pipeline_delete. However, it does not elaborate beyond the action and resource named in the tool itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pipeline_delete or deployment_pipeline_deploy. It neither states selection criteria nor mentions exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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