Apache Airflow MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Response dict: { "dag_run_id": str, "ui_url": str }') and error handling ('Raises: ToolError with compact JSON payload'), providing useful context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return sections. It is appropriately sized, though the parameter list is detailed; every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, destructive operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, detailed parameter semantics, return values, and error handling, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing all 7 parameters, including their purposes, optionality, mutual exclusivity rules, precedence, and data formats (e.g., 'ISO8601' for logical_date, 'dict or JSON string' for conf). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Trigger a DAG run') and resource ('DAG'), distinguishing it from siblings like airflow_pause_dag, airflow_unpause_dag, and airflow_clear_dag_run. It specifies the optional configuration aspect, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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

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

The description provides clear context for parameter usage, such as the mutual exclusivity between 'instance' and 'ui_url' and precedence rules. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like airflow_pause_dag or airflow_unpause_dag, which would help in sibling differentiation.

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