Retrieve Airflow users with limit and offset pagination to inspect accounts and verify access.
[Tool Role]: Lists all users 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API-version constraint and pagination behavior, but says nothing about authentication/permission requirements or rate limits; the output schema covers return shape, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The role sentence is front-loaded and the args block is compact and scannable. Minor waste in restating defaults already present in 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?
For a two-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the definition covers scope, version constraint, and both parameters. The only real omission is that with zero annotations, no permission or safety context is given.
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%, but the description compensates by defining both params: limit as 'Maximum number of records to request per page' and offset as 'Number of records to skip', with defaults restated. This is meaningful pagination semantics beyond the bare schema 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 users in the Airflow system (v1 API only)'. The plural list form is distinguishable from the sibling get_user and from list_roles, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
The 'v1 API only' caveat is a useful scoping constraint, and listing usage is largely implied. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_user for a single user or list_roles for role membership.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.