mcp-fabric-api

mirrored_database_get

Read-only

Retrieve details of a mirrored database by supplying workspace and mirrored database IDs to inspect its properties and status.

Instructions

Get details of a specific mirrored database

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>",
      "mirroredDatabaseId": "<mirroredDatabaseId>"
    },
    "name": "mirrored_database_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace ID
`mirroredDatabaseId`	Yes	The mirrored database ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it gets details. It does not say whether it returns full metadata, whether any compute/resource must exist, or whether the call is expensive.

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?

Single sentence with no filler; front-loaded with the verb and resource. The sentence earns its place given the simple parameter set.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the cluster of mirrored_database get-style siblings and the absence of an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'details' includes (metadata vs definition vs mirroring status), so an agent cannot confidently select this tool over its siblings.

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 both workspaceId and mirroredDatabaseId documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond 'specific', which is fine but not enhancing.

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 names a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('specific mirrored database'), so an agent knows the operation. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like mirrored_database_get_definition or mirrored_database_get_mirroring_status, so it stops at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 on when to prefer this tool over mirrored_database_get_definition, mirrored_database_get_mirroring_status, or mirrored_database_get_tables_mirroring_status. The sibling list shows several get-style variants, but the description gives no selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server