Lists all roles in the Airflow system (v1 API only) with limit and offset for pagination.
[Tool Role]: Lists all roles in the Airflow system (v1 API only).
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. It discloses the useful 'v1 API only' constraint, but never states that this is a pure read with no side effects, what happens on invalid limit/offset, whether pagination returns a total count, or anything about auth requirements. The pagination hints come only from parameter prose.
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?
Front-loaded with the core statement, which is good, but the 'Args:' block largely restates schema defaults and the '[Tool Role]:' prefix is noise. Nothing is bloated, yet some sentences do not earn extra value over the schema.
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-shape explanation is not needed, and for a simple two-parameter read-only list tool the description covers purpose and both parameters adequately. Only the missing read-only/auth framing keeps it from being fully complete.
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: both `limit` (max records per page, default 20) and `offset` (records to skip, default 0) are explained with semantics beyond the raw types. It stops short of stating the maximum allowed limit or the response paging shape.
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 roles') and adds scope ('Airflow system, v1 API only'), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like update_connection or list_permissions. It does not explicitly name a sibling it could be confused with, but the resource is unambiguous.
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, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_permissions or list_users. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Lists'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.