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

MCP-Airflow-API

by call518
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

dag_run_duration

Analyze recent run durations for a specified Airflow DAG to identify performance trends and compare execution times.

Instructions

[Tool Role]: Analyzes DAG run durations and performance metrics.

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": {
      "dag_id": "<dag_id>"
    },
    "name": "dag_run_duration"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of recent DAG runs to analyze (default: 10).
dag_idYesExact DAG identifier, as returned by list_dags; not its display name.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.7.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / dag_id / description
      Added value: +"Exact DAG identifier, as returned by list_dags; not its\ndisplay name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of recent DAG runs to analyze (default:\n10)."
  2. Addedv3.7.2
  3. Removedv3.6.5
  4. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.6.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / dag_id / title
      Removed value: -"Dag Id"
    • removedInput schema / properties / limit / title
      Removed value: -"Limit"
  5. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Previous value: -50New value: +10
  6. First observed

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, yet it says nothing about read-only behavior, cost/latency (how many runs are scanned), or what "performance metrics" concretely includes. A single role label plus one clause is far below the bar for an unannotated analytical tool.

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?

It is one short sentence with no wasted clauses, but the "[Tool Role]:" boilerplate prefix consumes words without conveying information, and the sentence is under-sized rather than efficient for its stakes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with zero annotations and only two sentences the definition leaves an agent without enough context for an analytics tool: nothing on what metrics are computed, the default window (limit=10 implies recency only), or how it differs from dag_task_duration.

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%: dag_id is documented as "Exact DAG identifier, as returned by list_dags; not its display name" and limit as the max number of recent runs. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 names a verb ("Analyzes") and a resource ("DAG run durations") plus a vague add-on ("performance metrics"). It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling dag_task_duration, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone whether to pick run-level vs task-level duration analysis.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that dag_id must come from list_dags), and no explicit routing to or from alternatives like dag_task_duration, dag_calendar, or running_dags. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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