Skip to main content
Glama
nikhil-ganage

MCP Server Airflow Token

post_pool

Create resource pools in Apache Airflow to manage task concurrency and optimize workflow execution by allocating specific slots for parallel processing.

Instructions

Create a pool

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
slotsYes
descriptionNo
include_deferredNo

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'post_pool' tool. It constructs a Pool object from input parameters and uses the Airflow PoolApi to create the pool, returning the response as text content.
    async def post_pool(
        name: str,
        slots: int,
        description: Optional[str] = None,
        include_deferred: Optional[bool] = None,
    ) -> List[Union[types.TextContent, types.ImageContent, types.EmbeddedResource]]:
        """
        Create a pool.
    
        Args:
            name: The pool name.
            slots: The number of slots.
            description: The pool description.
            include_deferred: Whether to include deferred tasks in slot calculations.
    
        Returns:
            The created pool details.
        """
        pool = Pool(
            name=name,
            slots=slots,
        )
    
        if description is not None:
            pool.description = description
    
        if include_deferred is not None:
            pool.include_deferred = include_deferred
    
        response = pool_api.post_pool(pool=pool)
        return [types.TextContent(type="text", text=str(response.to_dict()))]
  • Registers the 'post_pool' tool by including the tuple (post_pool, "post_pool", "Create a pool", False) in the list of functions returned for 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (though 'create' implies mutation), what permissions are needed, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies system state.

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 concise at two words, which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately brief, as it lacks necessary details. It's front-loaded but doesn't earn its place with useful content.

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 complexity of a creation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a pool is, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect in return, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'name', 'slots', 'description', or 'include_deferred', leaving their purposes and formats completely unspecified. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Create a pool' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'post_pool' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'create' but doesn't clarify what a 'pool' is in this system or what resources it involves, leaving the purpose vague compared to siblings like 'get_pool' or 'delete_pool'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'patch_pool' or 'get_pools'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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