Lists Airflow connections with pagination using limit and offset parameters to control records per page and skip entries.
[Tool Role]: Lists all connections in Airflow.
Args: limit: Maximum number of records to request per page. Default: 20. offset: Number of records to skip for pagination. Default: 0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.7.2v3.6.5v3.6.6Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / titleRemoved value: -"Limit"Input schema / properties / offset / titleRemoved value: -"Offset"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it discloses little beyond pagination defaults: it does not state whether a single call returns the complete set or one page, what ordering applies, whether permissions are required, or any rate-limit behavior for a read of 'all' connections.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the Args block is compact. The '[Tool Role]:' prefix and docstring framing are slight boilerplate but cost little.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, and both parameters are covered. What is missing for a paginated list tool is guidance on paging behavior and its relationship to get_connection, leaving the agent to infer how to retrieve the full set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that limit is the maximum records per page (default 20) and offset is the number of records to skip for pagination. Both parameters gain meaning beyond bare integer types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Lists all connections in Airflow.' The plural 'all' implicitly contrasts with get_connection, but the description never names that sibling or otherwise differentiates the two explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent is not told when to enumerate connections versus calling get_connection, nor how to page through large result sets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.