Skip to main content
Glama
nikhil-ganage

MCP Server Airflow Token

delete_pool

Remove a pool from Apache Airflow deployments to manage resource allocation and optimize workflow execution.

Instructions

Delete a pool

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pool_nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • The async handler function that implements the 'delete_pool' MCP tool. It deletes the specified Airflow pool using the PoolApi and returns a success confirmation message.
    async def delete_pool(
        pool_name: str,
    ) -> List[Union[types.TextContent, types.ImageContent, types.EmbeddedResource]]:
        """
        Delete a pool.
    
        Args:
            pool_name: The pool name.
    
        Returns:
            A confirmation message.
        """
        pool_api.delete_pool(pool_name=pool_name)
        return [types.TextContent(type="text", text=f"Pool '{pool_name}' deleted successfully.")]
  • Registration function that provides the tuple for the 'delete_pool' tool (function, name, description, read-only status) among other pool tools for MCP tool registration.
    def get_all_functions() -> list[tuple[Callable, str, str, bool]]:
        """Return list of (function, name, description, is_read_only) tuples for registration."""
        return [
            (get_pools, "get_pools", "List pools", True),
            (get_pool, "get_pool", "Get a pool by name", True),
            (delete_pool, "delete_pool", "Delete a pool", False),
            (post_pool, "post_pool", "Create a pool", False),
            (patch_pool, "patch_pool", "Update a pool", False),
        ]
Behavior1/5

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 a pool' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., impact on dependent resources), error conditions, or confirmation prompts. This is inadequate for a destructive operation 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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the verb and object directly.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address safety, return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., get_pools to list deletable pools). For a mutation tool in a complex system with many siblings, this is inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description mentions 'pool' but doesn't explain the pool_name parameter—what format it expects, how to identify valid pools, or if it's case-sensitive. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Delete a pool' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what a 'pool' is in this context (e.g., resource pool, connection pool, task pool) or distinguish this from similar deletion tools like delete_connection or delete_dag. While the verb 'delete' is clear, the resource remains ambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the pool must be empty), consequences (e.g., if deletion is permanent), or relationships to sibling tools like get_pool or patch_pool. With no usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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