MCP-Airflow-API

get_task_instance_extra_links

Retrieve extra links for an Airflow task instance by providing DAG ID, run ID, and task ID.

Instructions

[Tool Role]: Gets extra links for a task instance.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dag_id": "<dag_id>",
      "dag_run_id": "<dag_run_id>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_task_instance_extra_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dag_id`	Yes
`task_id`	Yes
`dag_run_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It merely states it 'gets' links, implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavior such as permission requirements, error handling, or return format. No annotation contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the verb. The '[Tool Role]:' prefix is extraneous and adds no value, slightly reducing quality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and an output schema not shown, the description is incomplete. It doesn't define 'extra links', mention any use cases, or explain the relationship between the three required parameters. Sibling tools exist for related operations but no differentiation is provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The parameter names (dag_id, dag_run_id, task_id) are self-explanatory for Airflow users, but the description doesn't explicitly map them to the task instance identifier. This is a gap given the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Gets extra links for a task instance' uses a specific verb and resource, and it clearly differs from sibling tools like get_task_instance_details and get_task_instance_logs. However, 'extra links' is not explained, which could be ambiguous for users unfamiliar with Airflow's plugin link concept.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server