Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP-Airflow-API

MCP-Airflow-API

by call518
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

create_connection

Creates a new Apache Airflow connection from a JSON payload with connection ID, type, and optional host, login, password, schema, port, and extra fields.

Instructions

[Tool Role]: Creates a new connection.

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": {
      "connection_data": "<connection_data>"
    },
    "name": "create_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
connection_dataYesConnection JSON body with connection_id and conn_type; optional host, login, password, schema, port, and extra fields. Obtain credentials from a secret store; do not hardcode them.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.7.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / connection_data / description
      Added value: +"Connection JSON body with connection_id and\nconn_type; optional host, login, password, schema, port, and\nextra fields. Obtain credentials from a secret store; do not\nhardcode them."
  2. Addedv3.7.2
  3. Removedv3.6.5
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.6.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / connection_data / title
      Removed value: -"Connection Data"
  5. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no permissions required, no duplicate-connection_id behavior, no failure modes. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and a one-line description leaves the agent guessing about side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise—the brevity comes from omitting information, not from tight editing. The redundant "[Tool Role]:" prefix contributes little.

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?

The output schema is present so return values need not be explained, and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. But for a write operation with no annotations, the description should still say something about preconditions (permissions, duplicate ids) and it does not.

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 description coverage is 100% and the connection_data property already documents connection_id, conn_type, optional host/login/password/schema/port/extra, and the secret-store advice. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ("Creates a new connection"), which separates it from list_connections/get_connection/update_connection by intent. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no distinguishing detail such as what a "connection" includes or when creation is preferred over update.

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 use this tool, no mention of prerequisites (permissions, existing connection_id collisions), and no reference to the sibling update_connection or get_connection tools. The agent must infer everything 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools