Skip to main content
Glama
call518

MCP-Airflow-API

by call518
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

dag_calendar

Displays a selected DAG's scheduled and executed runs across a date range, helping you review Airflow execution timing and identify gaps.

Instructions

[Tool Role]: Shows DAG schedule and execution calendar for a date range.

Args: dag_id: Exact DAG identifier, as returned by list_dags; not its display name. start_date: Inclusive run start-time lower bound in ISO 8601 format. end_date: Inclusive run start-time upper bound in ISO 8601 format.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dag_idYes
end_dateYes
start_dateYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.7.2
  2. Removedv3.6.5
  3. Changed4 schema fields changedv3.6.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / dag_id / title
      Removed value: -"Dag Id"
    • removedInput schema / properties / end_date / title
      Removed value: -"End Date"
    • removedInput schema / properties / start_date / title
      Removed value: -"Start Date"
  4. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / end_date / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / limit
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": 20,
-  "title": "Limit",
-  "type": "integer"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / start_date / default
      Removed value: -null
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "dag_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "dag_id",
+  "start_date",
+  "end_date"
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden; it partially does by implying a read-only view and by flagging that dag_id must be the exact identifier from list_dags rather than a display name. It says nothing about permission requirements, behavior on very wide ranges, pagination, or how schedule entries differ from execution entries.

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 tool role sentence is front-loaded and the per-argument notes are terse and each earn their place. The 'Args:' block formatting is functional rather than polished, but there is 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 return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are covered. Still missing for a calendar tool is what the entries represent (scheduled vs. actual runs, state markers) and how timestamps are interpreted, which an agent would want before calling.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the weighting, and it documents all three parameters meaningfully: dag_id as the exact identifier returned by list_dags, and start_date/end_date as inclusive ISO 8601 run start-time bounds. Only timezone handling and any range limits are left unspecified.

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 and resource ('Shows DAG schedule and execution calendar') scoped to a date range, which clearly separates it from list_dags, get_dag, and dag_graph. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a date range' and the fact that dag_id comes from list_dags. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over dag_run_duration, dag_graph, or running_dags, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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