Microsoft Fabric MCP Server

fabric_delete_item

Destructive

Delete a Microsoft Fabric item by its ID from a specified workspace. This action is permanent and cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete an item by ID. Destructive.

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>"
    },
    "name": "fabric_delete_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`itemId`	Yes	Item ID
`workspace`	No	Workspace ID (defaults to FABRIC_DEFAULT_WORKSPACE)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description repeats the annotation's destructiveHint (saying 'Destructive') but adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose consequences like whether the delete is irreversible, if it requires special permissions, or how errors are handled. With annotations already covering the safety hint, the description adds little value.

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?

At just 4 words, the description is extremely concise. It front-loads the key action. However, it sacrifices completeness, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation and the good schema coverage, the description is still incomplete. It lacks context on item types this applies to, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, and if there are any prerequisites. For a destructive operation, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (itemId and workspace) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete an item by ID' clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (an item) with the method (by ID). It is straightforward, but it does not differentiate from many sibling delete tools for specific item types, leaving ambiguity about when to use this generic delete versus specialized ones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other delete tools (e.g., fabric_delete_lakehouse, fabric_delete_warehouse). It only says 'Destructive,' which is obvious for a delete operation. No explicit when/ when-not or alternative suggestions.

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

Deploy Server