mcp-fabric-api

deployment_pipeline_get

Read-only

Fetch detailed information about a deployment pipeline by its ID to inspect its configuration, stages, and runtime status. Use this to monitor or troubleshoot pipeline operations in Microsoft Fabric.

Instructions

Get details of a specific 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_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pipelineId`	Yes	The deployment pipeline ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations; it simply restates the get operation. It doesn't disclose response contents, error behavior, or any side effects, though the annotations already establish safety.

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 filler. It conveys the operation and resource in as few words as possible.

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 read tool with safety annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it doesn't clarify what 'details' means, what the response contains (no output schema exists), or how this differs from deployment_pipeline_get_operation, leaving some 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with pipelineId already described as 'The deployment pipeline ID'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies given the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific deployment pipeline'), which clearly indicates a read operation on one pipeline. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like deployment_pipeline_get_operation or deployment_pipeline_list, but the 'specific' wording and resource distinction are sufficient to differentiate at a basic level.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention deployment_pipeline_list for enumerating pipelines, deployment_pipeline_get_operation for operation details, or any condition that selects this tool over those siblings.

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

Deploy Server