Skip to main content
Glama
nikhil-ganage

MCP Server Airflow Token

delete_connection

Remove a specific connection from Apache Airflow by providing its unique identifier to manage authentication configurations.

Instructions

Delete a connection by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conn_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The async handler function that deletes the specified Airflow connection using the connection_api and returns a text response with the result.
    async def delete_connection(conn_id: str) -> List[Union[types.TextContent, types.ImageContent, types.EmbeddedResource]]:
        response = connection_api.delete_connection(connection_id=conn_id)
        return [types.TextContent(type="text", text=str(response.to_dict()))]
  • The get_all_functions function returns the list of MCP tools for registration, including the delete_connection tool tuple on line 18.
    def get_all_functions() -> list[tuple[Callable, str, str, bool]]:
        """Return list of (function, name, description, is_read_only) tuples for registration."""
        return [
            (list_connections, "list_connections", "List all connections", True),
            (create_connection, "create_connection", "Create a connection", False),
            (get_connection, "get_connection", "Get a connection by ID", True),
            (update_connection, "update_connection", "Update a connection by ID", False),
            (delete_connection, "delete_connection", "Delete a connection by ID", False),
            (test_connection, "test_connection", "Test a connection", True),
        ]
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, confirmation steps, side effects (e.g., impact on dependent workflows), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility), parameter context, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for safe and effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which clarifies that 'conn_id' is an identifier, but doesn't explain the ID format, source (e.g., from 'list_connections'), or validation rules. With one undocumented parameter, this adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a connection by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_dag' or 'delete_variable', but the resource specificity ('connection') provides some distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools include 'delete_dag', 'delete_variable', etc., the description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the connection ID from 'get_connection' or 'list_connections'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar deletion tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nikhil-ganage/mcp-server-airflow-token'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server