MCP-Airflow-API

get_xcom_entry

Retrieves a specific XCom entry from an Airflow DAG run. Provide DAG ID, run ID, task ID, and XCom key to access task output data.

Instructions

[Tool Role]: Gets a specific XCom entry.

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>",
      "xcom_key": "<xcom_key>"
    },
    "name": "get_xcom_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Gets', implying a read operation, but discloses no behavioral details such as return format, error handling, or scope. This is minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely brief, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters. It lacks any structured information beyond the one-liner, making it not 'appropriately sized'.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the tool's relationship to sibling get/list tools is not explained.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the four required parameters (dag_id, dag_run_id, task_id, xcom_key). The agent must rely solely on variable names, which may be ambiguous without additional context.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Gets' and identifies the resource as 'a specific XCom entry', clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_xcom_entries which lists entries. This makes the purpose immediately clear.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_xcom_entries, nor any conditions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server