Skip to main content
Glama
MCP-Airflow-API

MCP-Airflow-API

by call518

get_provider

Retrieve detailed information for a specific Apache Airflow provider package by exact package name, so you can inspect provider metadata without manual package lookups.

Instructions

[Tool Role]: Gets details of a specific provider package.

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": {
      "provider_name": "<provider_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_provider"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
provider_nameYesExact provider package name, such as apache- airflow-providers-http.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.7.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider_name / description
      Added value: +"Exact provider package name, such as apache-\nairflow-providers-http."
  2. Addedv3.7.2
  3. Removedv3.6.5
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.6.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / provider_name / title
      Removed value: -"Provider Name"
  5. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 behavioral burden, yet it only restates the name. It says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior for unknown providers, or what 'details' comprise.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification.

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 no explanation, and the lone parameter is fully documented. However, for a lookup tool the absence of any failure-mode or discovery guidance leaves a modest gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the exact package-name format with an example, so the description needs no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Gets details) and resource (a specific provider package), which separates it from list_providers by scope. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 implied — fetch details when you have an exact provider package name — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_providers for discovery.

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