mcp-fabric-api

pipeline_get_run_status

Read-only

Retrieve the current status of a Microsoft Fabric pipeline run by providing workspace, pipeline, and job instance IDs, enabling progress monitoring and issue detection.

Instructions

Get the status of a pipeline run

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>",
      "jobInstanceId": "<jobInstanceId>"
    },
    "name": "pipeline_get_run_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pipelineId`	Yes	The pipeline ID
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace ID
`jobInstanceId`	Yes	The job instance ID from pipeline_run

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; it does not explain what status values are returned, whether the call can be polled, or any error behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations, but also no additional transparency value.

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 front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only getter with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not disclose what the returned status looks like or how an agent should interpret it, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 schema already documents workspaceId, pipelineId, and jobInstanceId. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 ('Get') and a precise resource ('status of a pipeline run'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling run-status tools for other resources like notebook_get_run_status and copy_job_get_run_status. It is unambiguous and directly reflects 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pipeline_list_runs or pipeline_cancel_run, and it does not mention that jobInstanceId should come from a prior pipeline_run call. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name.

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

Deploy Server