airbyte-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to airbyte-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables natural language interaction with Apache Airflow for querying DAGs, monitoring execution, and troubleshooting failures.1MIT

Orchestra MCP Serverofficial
FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables interaction with the Orchestra API for managing pipelines, runs, logs, and artifacts through natural language.-- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables users to interact with Apache Airflow orchestration platform through natural language to query pipeline statuses, troubleshoot DAG failures, trigger DAGs, and analyze configurations.10MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables seamless integration with AnythingLLM instances, providing complete workspace management, chat operations, document handling, user administration, and AI agent configuration through natural language.3816 npm16MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables natural language interaction with Baserow databases, supporting workspace, database, table, and row operations with authentication and batch capabilities.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to interact with Databricks workspaces through natural language, supporting SQL queries, cluster management, jobs, Genie AI, Unity Catalog, and more.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 36 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, the multiple job- and log-related tools (e.g., airbyte_get_job, airbyte_get_job_details, airbyte_get_job_logs, airbyte_get_attempt_logs, airbyte_list_jobs, airbyte_list_jobs_internal) could confuse an agent despite the clarifications. The overlap is manageable but not perfect.
All tools follow a consistent pattern: 'airbyte_' + verb (cancel, create, get, list, trigger, update, wait_for) + noun. Naming is uniform, uses snake_case, and no mixing of conventions. Very predictable.
With 36 tools, the server covers a wide range of Airbyte operations thoroughly. While slightly numerous, each tool serves a specific, justified need in managing the data pipeline lifecycle. The count is appropriate for the comprehensive scope.
The tool set covers most major workflows (CRUD for sources, destinations, connections; job management; triggering syncs and refreshes). However, notable gaps exist: there are no tools to delete sources, destinations, or connections, which are missing CRUD operations. This limits the completeness of lifecycle management.