powerbi-desktop-mcp

list_relationships

Retrieve table relationships in a Power BI model—including from/to tables and columns, cardinality, active status, and cross-filter direction—to analyze model structure.

Instructions

List relationships between tables: from/to table and column, cardinality, active flag, cross-filter direction.

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": {
      "instance": "<instance>"
    },
    "name": "list_relationships"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instance`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially does: enumerating returned attributes makes clear this is a read-only metadata enumeration and tells the agent what data to expect. It says nothing about scope (single instance? all tables?), permissions, or volume, which matters for a model-wide listing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the field list. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so needing to explain return values is reduced, and the enumeration of fields is a bonus. But with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly on a specific instance.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single required parameter 'instance' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so the agent must guess whether it is a server name, file path, or model identifier. This is exactly the case where the description needed to compensate for the schema and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (relationships between tables), and enumerates the fields returned: from/to table and column, cardinality, active flag, cross-filter direction. That distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_relationships or check_relationship_integrity, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over analyze_relationships, check_relationship_integrity, or list_hierarchies — all plausible adjacent choices. The only signal is the word 'List', which implies a plain enumeration rather than analysis, and that is left to inference.

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