Skip to main content
Glama
yangkyeongmo

MCP Server for Apache Airflow

by yangkyeongmo

delete_pool

Remove a specific pool from Apache Airflow to manage resource allocation and optimize task execution.

Instructions

Delete a pool

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pool_nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'delete_pool' tool. It takes a pool_name parameter, calls the Airflow PoolApi to delete the pool, and returns a 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.")]
  • The get_all_functions() which includes the registration tuple for 'delete_pool' tool, providing the function reference, name, description, and read-only flag.
    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),
        ]
  • src/main.py:95-96 (registration)
    The generic registration loop in main.py that adds all tools from get_all_functions() lists, including 'delete_pool', to the MCP app.
    for func, name, description, *_ in functions:
        app.add_tool(Tool.from_function(func, name=name, description=description))
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a pool' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is permanent, if confirmation is needed, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise ('Delete a pool')—a single three-word sentence. While this is efficient and front-loaded, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise, as it omits essential context. However, it doesn't waste words or include redundant information.

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 cover behavioral risks, parameter meaning, expected outcomes, or error conditions. This is inadequate for safe and 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (pool_name) with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what a pool_name is, its format, valid values, or how to obtain it. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this leaves the parameter completely undocumented.

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' restates the tool name 'delete_pool' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what a 'pool' is in this context (e.g., resource pool, connection pool, data pool) or distinguish it from sibling tools like delete_connection, delete_dag, or delete_variable. This is a tautology that provides minimal value beyond the name.

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., needing to identify an existing pool), consequences (e.g., what happens to dependent resources), or when to choose other deletion tools like delete_dag or delete_variable. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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/yangkyeongmo/mcp-server-apache-airflow'

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