Microsoft Fabric MCP Server

fabric_create_job_schedule

Create a schedule for a Fabric item's job using a configuration object specifying type, start date, time, and time zone.

Instructions

Create a schedule for an item's job. configuration is the Fabric schedule object, e.g. {"type":"Daily","startDateTime":"2026-01-01T00:00:00","times":["09:00"],"localTimeZoneId":"UTC"}.

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": {
      "itemId": "<itemId>",
      "jobType": "<jobType>",
      "configuration": "<configuration>"
    },
    "name": "fabric_create_job_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`itemId`	Yes	Item ID (notebook, pipeline, spark job definition, lakehouse, …)
`jobType`	Yes	Job type, e.g. "RunNotebook", "Pipeline", "sparkjob", "TableMaintenance"
`enabled`	No
`configuration`	Yes	Schedule configuration object
`workspace`	No	Workspace ID (defaults to FABRIC_DEFAULT_WORKSPACE)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it overwrite existing schedules?), permissions, or rate limits. The description only states the basic action.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides an example. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and empty annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core action and example but lacks details on return values, error handling, or success criteria.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80% with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds significant value by providing a concrete example of the 'configuration' object, which is complex and nested.

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 states it creates a schedule for an item's job. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like fabric_run_job or fabric_list_job_schedules, but the action 'create schedule' is distinct enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for recurring vs one-time jobs). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Deploy Server