List Airflow DAGs with optional filters for query and result limits, enabling quick monitoring of workflows and identification of relevant DAGs for troubleshooting.
List dags resources/items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| query | No | Filter/query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only 'list' action, but does not mention how results are returned, whether there are any side effects (e.g., visibility of all DAGs), authentication requirements, or limitations such as max results. This is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.
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 very short and front-loaded, but the phrase 'dags resources/items' is grammatically clumsy and unclear. It could be more precise without adding length. It is not a tautology, but it also not a model of clarity.
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?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is incomplete. It does not specify what the list returns, the meaning of 'resources/items,' or how the limit/query parameters affect results. An agent would need to guess at behavior, even with the schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both limit and query. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't reference 'limit' or 'query' at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
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 uses the verb 'List' to indicate enumeration, but the resource phrase 'dags resources/items' is awkward and ambiguous – it does not clearly specify what exactly is listed (DAGs? DAG items?). It broadly distinguishes this as a list operation from the sibling get/status/diagnose tools, but the vagueness prevents a 4.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus airflow_status, airflow_get, or airflow_diagnose. There is no mention of filters, pagination, or conditions under which an agent should prefer this over alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.