Skip to main content
Glama
yangkyeongmo

MCP Server for Apache Airflow

by yangkyeongmo

post_pool

Create a pool in Apache Airflow to manage task execution concurrency by defining slots and optional descriptions.

Instructions

Create a pool

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
slotsYes
descriptionNo
include_deferredNo

Implementation Reference

  • The asynchronous 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()))]
  • The get_all_functions() lists all pool-related tools for registration, including the 'post_pool' tool with its handler, name, description, and mutability 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),
        ]
Behavior2/5

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. 'Create a pool' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a creation tool.

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 with just two words, 'Create a pool', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It efficiently conveys the basic action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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?

Given the complexity of a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional inference or trial-and-error.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'name', 'slots', 'description', or 'include_deferred' mean, their constraints, or how they affect pool creation. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Create a pool' states the action (create) and resource (pool), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what kind of pool (e.g., resource pool, connection pool) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_pool', 'patch_pool', or 'delete_pool'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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., authentication), compare to similar tools like 'patch_pool' for updates, or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for existing pools). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name 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/yangkyeongmo/mcp-server-apache-airflow'

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