Skip to main content
Glama
MCP-Airflow-API

MCP-Airflow-API

by call518

get_pool

Retrieve detailed information about a specific Apache Airflow pool by providing its exact name. Use this to inspect pool configuration and status.

Instructions

[Tool Role]: Gets details for a specific pool.

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": {
      "pool_name": "<pool_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_pool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pool_nameYesExact Airflow pool name, such as default_pool.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.7.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / pool_name / description
      Added value: +"Exact Airflow pool name, such as default_pool."
  2. Addedv3.7.2
  3. Removedv3.6.5
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.6.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / pool_name / title
      Removed value: -"Pool Name"
  5. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. "Gets details" implies a read-only retrieval and the output schema covers return values, but the description does not mention behavior when the pool is missing, permissions, or any other operational traits.

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?

A single short sentence with the key information front-loaded and no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-name tool.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could improve by explicitly routing agents to list_pools when they do not already know the pool name.

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 schema already documents pool_name with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only "specific pool" without additional meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: "Gets details" for "a specific pool." It is distinguishable from the list-oriented sibling by "specific," but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against list_pools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_pools or other pool-related siblings. Usage is only implied by the required pool_name parameter and the word "specific."

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.