mcp-fabric-api

eventhouse_delete

Destructive

Delete an eventhouse from a Microsoft Fabric workspace by providing workspace and eventhouse IDs. Removes the specified eventhouse resource.

Instructions

Delete an eventhouse

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>",
      "eventhouseId": "<eventhouseId>"
    },
    "name": "eventhouse_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace ID
`eventhouseId`	Yes	The eventhouse ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. Still, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether deletion is permanent, whether associated data is removed, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant explanation. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and front-loads the core action and object.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a low-complexity delete tool with two fully documented parameters and a destructive annotation, the description is mostly complete. The only missing context is any irreversibility or cascade-effect warning, but that is partially mitigated by destructiveHint=true.

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%: both required parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage, a baseline score 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 specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('an eventhouse'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like eventhouse_get or eventhouse_update, and from other resource deletes by naming the resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to delete an eventhouse. However, it does not explicitly mention preconditions, what to check before deleting, or why an agent might choose this over related tools such as kql_database_delete or eventhouse_update.

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

Deploy Server