Retrieve paginated Airflow import errors to diagnose DAG parsing failures and identify files that failed to load.
[Tool Role]: Lists import errors 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"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. It discloses pagination semantics through limit/offset, but says nothing about read-only safety, whether results are ordered, which fields are returned, or what happens with an invalid offset. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 one-sentence summary is front-loaded and the Args block is terse and readable. The 'Default:' lines duplicate the schema defaults, but there is no wasted prose.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values, and having that schema helps. Still, with no annotations and no differentiation from the sibling error-retrieval tools, an agent is left to infer ordering and when to prefer this tool over get_import_error.
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 explain the parameters, and it does: limit is 'Maximum number of records to request per page' with a default of 20, and offset is 'Number of records to skip for pagination' with a default of 0. Both optional parameters are explained clearly, though the defaults simply repeat the schema.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Lists import errors in Airflow.' An agent can tell it retrieves a collection of DAG import errors. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_import_error, which retrieves a single error, so the agent must infer the split between the two.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling get_import_error or all_dag_import_summary, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'Lists'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.