mcp-fabric-api

mirrored_database_update

Update a mirrored database's display name or description in Microsoft Fabric by specifying the workspace ID and mirrored database ID.

Instructions

Update a mirrored database's name or description

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_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`description`	No	New description
`displayName`	No	New display name
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds little by saying 'Update'. It does not disclose effects on mirroring, idempotency, whether at least one field must be provided, or any side effects beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. It communicates the essential scope without unnecessary explanation.

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 simple metadata-update tool, the description combined with the fully documented schema and annotations is mostly sufficient. It lacks a note distinguishing it from mirrored_database_update_definition and does not mention the return value, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds only a high-level mapping of 'name' to displayName and 'description' to description, but no extra constraints or format details.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Update') and resource ('mirrored database'), and narrows the scope to name or description. It is not explicitly contrasted with the sibling mirrored_database_update_definition, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from that likely alternative.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need to change a mirrored database's display name or description. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from mirrored_database_update_definition, leaving the selection partially to inference.

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

Deploy Server