airflow-dev-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.4.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action with no overlap: clearing tasks, listing import errors, checking run status, fetching logs, listing connections/dag runs/DAGs/variables, toggling pause, and triggering runs. An agent can easily distinguish between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase underscores (e.g., clear_task_instances, get_import_errors, list_dags). Although verbs vary (clear, get, list, set, trigger), the pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well-scoped for an Airflow dev MCP server. It covers essential operations without being bloated or insufficient, providing a focused set for common development tasks.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the main workflows: triggering, monitoring, logging, pausing, and basic asset listing. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated get_dag endpoint, but list_dags with filtering partially compensates. No CRUD on connections/variables is acceptable for a read-only dev environment.
Average 4.6/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 32 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 31, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It details return structure (RunStatus, TaskInstanceSummary fields) and the conditional null of tasks when include_tasks=False. No contradictions.
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?
The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, though slightly verbose due to detailed type info. It is clear and front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description's return details are supplementary but helpful. It covers purpose, parameters, and return structure sufficiently for a medium-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear, meaningful descriptions for all three parameters, including an example for run_id, which adds significant value beyond bare schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets the state of a DAG run and optionally its task instances. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_dag_runs (which lists runs) by focusing on a single run's detailed status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains parameters and when to use include_tasks, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_dag_runs or clear_task_instances, though the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It honestly states that triggering a paused DAG creates a queued run that will not execute until unpaused, and that run_id is returned for status lookups. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist) and adds necessary caveats about execution.
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?
The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and a separate note for the paused-DAG behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. A slight improvement would be to reduce redundancy between the initial sentence and the Args block, but overall it is clear and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), lack of schema description, and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary facets: parameter details, return type (DagRunSummary), and a critical behavioral note about paused DAGs. It also references a sibling tool for unpausing, making it self-contained.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: dag_id as the Airflow identifier, conf as an optional dict passed to the run, logical_date as ISO-8601 (defaults to now), and note as a human-readable string. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('manual run of a DAG'), immediately clarifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_dags, set_dag_paused) by focusing on initiating a run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While it does not explicitly state 'use this when...', it implies the primary use case: manually triggering a DAG. The note about paused DAGs instructs the agent to check DAG state and references set_dag_paused as a complementary action, providing clear guidance on when this tool is (and is not) sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the tool reads from the scheduler's recorded errors and returns specific fields (filename, stack_trace, timestamp, import_error_id). No annotations are provided, so no contradictions; description adequately covers read-only nature.
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 paragraphs: first defines purpose, second gives usage context and parameter description. No redundant sentences, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return fields. Despite not detailing error handling or authentication, the output schema existence reduces the need for return value explanation; overall sufficient for a straightforward list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters (limit and offset) beyond the schema, noting default values and their purpose for pagination. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists DAG import errors, a specific type of parse failure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_run_status or list_dags by focusing on import errors as a debugging resource for missing DAGs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use: 'when a DAG you just wrote isn't showing up' due to import errors. Provides context that it's the primary debugging tool, but does not mention alternative tools or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the effect (pause/unpause), default behavior of new DAGs, and consequence of triggering while paused. It also mentions the return value (DagInfo). With no annotations, this provides sufficient behavioral insight for a simple toggle tool.
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?
The description is concise with no wasted words. It follows a logical structure: purpose, context, parameter docs, return value. Information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple pause/unpause tool with output schema, this description is complete. It explains default behavior, interaction with triggering, and return format. No gaps identified.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explicitly documents both parameters: 'dag_id: DAG identifier' and 'paused: True to pause, False to unpause.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title, clarifying the boolean's semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence clearly states 'Pause or unpause a DAG.', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trigger_dag by focusing on state management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context: newly added DAGs are paused by default, so trigger_dag will queue a run that never executes until unpaused. This guides when to call with paused=False to enable the DAG. While alternatives are implied, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, passwords are never returned, and lists return fields. This is strong transparency, though it does not cover error states or authentication requirements.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with a headline, then usage note, then args, then returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, read-only, with output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and return format. It could add error handling notes but is mostly complete.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'limit: Max connections to return (default 100)' and 'offset: Pagination offset.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List Airflow Connections (read-only)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_dags and list_variables by explicitly naming 'connections' as the target resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'use it to confirm a connection exists with the expected conn_type / host / schema when a task fails to connect.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return format (DagRunList with dag_runs and total_entries) and parameter behavior. However, it lacks details on pagination or potential performance implications.
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?
The description is concise, uses bullet points for args and returns, and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return value. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must document all parameters. It explains dag_id (including special value '~'), limit, offset, and state with examples. This fully compensates for missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent runs of a DAG and when it is useful. It distinguishes from siblings like get_run_status by specifying it's for when you don't hold a run_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context ('useful when you don't already hold a run_id'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or name sibling alternatives. It gives enough guidance for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description handles behavioral disclosure: states read-only nature, cannot create/modify, and mentions sensitive value masking. No contradictions.
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?
Very concise: two sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections. Front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-pagination tool, description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and behavioral constraints. Output schema exists, and description complements it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% but description fully explains both parameters (limit, offset) with purpose and defaults. Also describes return structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (list), resource (Airflow Variables), and read-only nature. It distinguishes from mutation tools and ties to a specific use case (troubleshooting missing config).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context for when to use (troubleshooting missing config) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. No sibling tools for variables, so context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description fully discloses behavior: dry-run default, effect of reset_dag_runs, restriction options, and return value. No annotations were provided, so description carries full burden and exceeds expectations.
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?
Well-structured with a concise summary, behavior explanation, parameter list, and return description. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 6 parameters, and existing output schema, the description is fully complete: explains purpose, parameter usage, and return structure without gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, but description adds detailed and actionable semantics for all 6 parameters, including recommendations (dag_run_id) and conditional behavior (only_failed).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it clears task instances for re-running, uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_run_status or list_dags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context ('fast way to re-test after a fix') and explains default behavior (dry run) and how to actually clear. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: tailing (tail_lines), truncation indicator, line_count, try_number echoing, and warning about large output. Covers all safety and usage aspects.
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?
Concise yet comprehensive. Uses bullet points and clear separation of args/returns. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter explanations, then return format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a log-fetching tool. Explains all 6 parameters, output schema fields, and potential pitfalls (large output). References sibling tool for supplemental info. No gaps given the complexity and lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds essential meaning: explains map_index (-1 for normal tasks), tail_lines (default 500, null for full log with warning), try_number (1-indexed, multiple attempts, references get_run_status). Transforms cryptic parameters into actionable knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Fetch logs for a single task instance attempt,' clearly stating the verb (fetch) and resource (logs). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_run_status for try_number management, adding differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for using tail_lines and warns about large logs. Mentions get_run_status to find the latest try_number. Does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus other logging or status tools, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains key behaviors (missing import-error DAGs) and return structure, but does not explicitly state read-only or safe mutation behavior. The tool name 'list_' implies read-only, but a brief mention of non-destructive behavior would be ideal.
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?
The description is well-structured: a concise first-line summary, a usage note, an Args block with clear parameter explanations, and a Returns block. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given sibling tools, the description clearly contrasts with get_import_errors. It fully describes the return fields and pagination. The moderate complexity is well-addressed, leaving no obvious gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: limit (max, default 100), offset (pagination), dag_id_pattern (case-insensitive substring filter), tags (list, filtering). This adds significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List DAGs registered in the cluster with their paused / import-error flags,' which is a specific verb (List) and resource (DAGs). It also clarifies the use case ('confirm a DAG parsed and registered'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_dag_runs or get_import_errors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when not to use this tool: 'a DAG whose file fails to import ... does NOT appear here at all — call get_import_errors for that.' It provides a clear alternative (sibling tool) and a specific use case, making it easy to decide when to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![airflow-dev-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BrianLondon/airflow-dev-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BrianLondon/airflow-dev-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![airflow-dev-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BrianLondon/airflow-dev-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BrianLondon/airflow-dev-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BrianLondon/airflow-dev-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server