mcp-fabric-api

pipeline_delete_schedule

Destructive

Delete a pipeline schedule using workspace, pipeline, and schedule IDs to stop automated runs and prevent unintended executions.

Instructions

Delete a pipeline schedule

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>",
      "pipelineId": "<pipelineId>",
      "scheduleId": "<scheduleId>"
    },
    "name": "pipeline_delete_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pipelineId`	Yes	The pipeline ID
`scheduleId`	Yes	The schedule ID to delete
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace 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?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Delete' adds no behavioral information beyond the structured fields. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose consequences, irreversibility, or effects on pipeline execution.

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 four words and clearly front-loaded with the action and object. There is no filler or redundant 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 delete operation with all three required parameters documented in the schema and destructive behavior already indicated by annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be enriched by noting that deletion permanently removes the schedule, but no critical invocation detail is missing.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description (pipeline ID, schedule ID, workspace ID). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource ('pipeline schedule'), making it immediately distinct from siblings like pipeline_delete, pipeline_create_schedule, and pipeline_update_schedule. It fully disambiguates the tool's function.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it note prerequisites or side effects such as what happens to scheduled runs after deletion. The agent must infer distinctions from sibling tool names.

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

Deploy Server