Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Fabric MCP Server

Microsoft Fabric MCP Server

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

fabric_update_item_definition

Replace a Microsoft Fabric item's definition by providing file parts specifying path and content. Handles long-running definition updates.

Instructions

Replace an item's definition from file parts (long-running).

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>",
      "parts": "<parts>"
    },
    "name": "fabric_update_item_definition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemIdYesItem ID
partsYesDefinition file parts (encoded to InlineBase64 automatically)
workspaceNoWorkspace ID (defaults to FABRIC_DEFAULT_WORKSPACE)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Only mentions 'long-running', which hints at async nature but provides no details on side effects, idempotency, or whether it replaces or merges. With no annotations, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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?

Single sentence is efficient and includes key action and constraint ('long-running'). No excessive words, but could be restructured to front-load scope.

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?

Lacks essential context for a long-running mutation: no output schema, no mention of job tracking, prerequisites, error states, or what happens on failure. Incomplete for safe agent use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds no new parameter info beyond schema, which already clearly defines itemId, parts (path+content), and workspace.

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?

Identifies verb 'Replace', resource 'item's definition', and mechanism 'from file parts'. However, does not distinguish from sibling tools like fabric_update_item (general update) or fabric_update_notebook_definition (specific type). A clearer distinction would improve selection.

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. With siblings like fabric_update_item and specific definition updaters, the description should clarify context (e.g., 'Use for replacing the entire definition of any item that supports it, not for metadata updates').

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools