airflow-mcp-server

airflow-trigger-dag

Trigger a new Airflow DAG run with optional configuration payload and note. Controlled by write permissions.

Instructions

Trigger a new Airflow DAG run with optional conf payload and note. Write-gated by AIRFLOW_ALLOW_WRITE.

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": {
      "dagId": "<dagId>"
    },
    "name": "airflow-trigger-dag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dagId`	Yes
`dagRunId`	No	Optional run id; auto-generated if omitted
`conf`	No	DAG run conf payload
`note`	No	Optional note attached to the run
`logicalDate`	No	Optional logical_date (ISO 8601) — Airflow 3.x replacement for execution_date

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.4May 28, 2026
Removedv1.0.2May 15, 2026

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0May 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / logicalDate

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional logical_date (ISO 8601) — Airflow 3.x replacement for execution_date",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the write constraint and optional parameters, but does not mention potential side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is synchronous.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and add a constraint. No unnecessary words, efficiently communicates key information.

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?

Missing critical details: no output schema or description of return value (run ID?), no mention of asynchronous behavior, error conditions, or required permissions beyond write-gate. For a trigger action, agents need to know what to expect after invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'write-gated' context but largely repeats schema info (optional conf and note). Does not add deeper semantics for nested 'conf' object.

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 clearly states the action (trigger) and resource (new Airflow DAG run), and mentions optional conf and note. It distinguishes from siblings, as no other sibling tool triggers a DAG run.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description notes write-gating via AIRFLOW_ALLOW_WRITE, implying usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to trigger vs clear tasks). No direct comparison with sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server