Lists all Apache Airflow pools with pagination via limit and offset, helping you inspect and manage resource pools without API complexity.
[Tool Role]: Lists all pools 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden; 'List' implies a read-only enumeration, and it discloses the pagination defaults. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, whether results are bounded server-side, or ordering — gaps that matter somewhat for an unannotated tool, though the output schema covers return shape.
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 statement is front-loaded in a single clean sentence; the Args block mirrors the schema but is short and readable. Nothing is bloated, though the parameter restatement earns only partial credit.
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?
For a simple paginated list tool with an output schema defining return values, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The main missing piece is how it relates to get_pool and any ordering or filtering behavior.
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: limit is defined as 'Maximum number of records to request per page' and offset as 'Number of records to skip for pagination', adding paging semantics beyond raw integer types. Defaults are repeated from the schema, which is minor redundancy.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists all pools in Airflow'), and the word 'all' implicitly contrasts it with the sibling get_pool. It stops short of naming get_pool explicitly as the single-pool alternative.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling get_pool for retrieving one pool by name. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.