Skip to main content
Glama
call518

MCP-Airflow-API

by call518
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_xcom_entry

Retrieve a specific XCom entry by DAG ID, DAG run ID, task ID, and XCom key to inspect task-to-task data passed during an Airflow run.

Instructions

[Tool Role]: Gets a specific XCom entry.

Args: dag_id: Exact DAG identifier, as returned by list_dags; not its display name. dag_run_id: Exact DAG run identifier for the selected DAG. task_id: Exact task identifier within the selected DAG. xcom_key: Exact XCom key for the selected task instance.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dag_idYes
task_idYes
xcom_keyYes
dag_run_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.7.2
  2. Removedv3.6.5
  3. Changed5 schema fields changedv3.6.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / dag_id / title
      Removed value: -"Dag Id"
    • removedInput schema / properties / dag_run_id / title
      Removed value: -"Dag Run Id"
    • removedInput schema / properties / task_id / title
      Removed value: -"Task Id"
    • removedInput schema / properties / xcom_key / title
      Removed value: -"Xcom Key"
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / map_index
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": -1,
-  "title": "Map Index",
-  "type": "integer"
-}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Gets' implies a read-only, exact-match lookup, and the identifier descriptions clarify the required resolution hierarchy, but the description says nothing about behavior when the key is absent, whether values are deserialized/typed, or size/rate constraints. Return shape is covered by the output schema, which limits the gap.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; every line maps to a required parameter with no filler. The '[Tool Role]' prefix is slightly redundant but harmless.

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?

For a four-required-parameter lookup with no annotations, the description supplies the identifiers and their resolution context, and the output schema handles return values. What is missing is failure/edge behavior (nonexistent key or run) and how the returned value is encoded, which an agent calling this tool would benefit from knowing.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: dag_id explicitly warns to use the exact identifier from list_dags rather than the display name, and the other three parameters are framed as exact identifiers scoped to their parent (selected DAG, selected DAG run, selected task instance). The dag_run_id/task_id/xcom_key entries mostly restate their names, keeping it below a 5.

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 ('Gets a specific XCom entry'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling list_xcom_entries. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the singular/specific framing makes the distinction evident.

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 rather than stated: the tool retrieves the exact value for one key, which follows naturally from listing entries, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The dag_id note ('as returned by list_dags') gives a useful hint about the upstream call needed to obtain the identifier.

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