mcp-fabric-api

semantic_model_create_bim

Create a semantic model in Microsoft Fabric from a BIM/JSON definition file. Specify workspace, display name, and file path to load model.bim into the service.

Instructions

Create a new semantic model with a BIM/JSON definition (long-running). Reads the model.bim JSON from the specified file path.

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>",
      "displayName": "<displayName>",
      "definitionFilePath": "<definitionFilePath>"
    },
    "name": "semantic_model_create_bim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`description`	No	Description of the semantic model
`displayName`	Yes	Display name for the semantic model
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace ID
`definitionFilePath`	Yes	Path to a file containing the model.bim JSON

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the operation is long-running and that it reads input from a file path. No contradiction with annotations; it could add more about async tracking, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first names the operation and its key caveat, the second specifies the input source. No filler or redundancy.

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 create tool with fully documented parameters and a long-running note, the core invocation context is covered. The absence of an output schema means return/polling behavior is not described, but that is a minor gap given the tool's straightforward create semantics.

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 all four parameters. The description adds no substantial meaning beyond reinforcing definitionFilePath as the BIM source, meeting the baseline without adding extra detail.

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 action ('Create'), a precise resource ('semantic model'), and the definition format ('BIM/JSON'), which distinguishes it from the sibling semantic_model_create_tmdl. The file-path detail further clarifies the input mechanism.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The BIM/JSON qualifier clearly signals that this tool is for BIM-based definitions rather than TMDL, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as semantic_model_create_tmdl or state exclusion conditions.

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

Deploy Server