mcp-fabric-api

notebook_run

Run a Microsoft Fabric notebook on demand by providing workspace and notebook IDs. Pass parameters as key-value pairs to execute the notebook with specific inputs.

Instructions

Run a notebook on demand

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>",
      "notebookId": "<notebookId>"
    },
    "name": "notebook_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notebookId`	Yes	The notebook ID
`parameters`	No	Notebook parameters as key-value pairs
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose that running a notebook executes arbitrary code, may be asynchronous, produces a run ID, or that run status should be checked via notebook_get_run_status.

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. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful behavioral detail that could have been included without bloating the text.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not explain return values, run semantics, or follow-up actions like checking run status or canceling a run. For an execution tool with side effects and no output schema, this is an incomplete definition.

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 every parameter is already documented: workspaceId, notebookId, and parameters as key-value pairs. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but the structured schema carries the burden, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run a notebook on demand'. It clearly distinguishes the operation from notebook list/get/update/cancel siblings by indicating an execution action. It does not explicitly contrast with scheduled or asynchronous execution, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use notebook_run versus related tools like notebook_get_run_status, notebook_cancel_run, or pipeline_run. The phrase 'on demand' implies immediate execution, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are stated.

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

Deploy Server