Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Airflow MCP

Airflow MCP

by zamax14
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

trigger_dag_run

Destructive

Start a new Airflow DAG run with optional configuration and logical date. This action creates an immediate, irreversible execution of the specified DAG.

Instructions

Trigger a new DAG run. Sensitive: creates a new, irreversible execution.

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": {
      "dag_id": "<dag_id>"
    },
    "name": "trigger_dag_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confNo
dag_idYes
logical_dateNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'irreversible execution,' which slightly amplifies the destructive nature but doesn't disclose new behavioral traits like auth requirements or potential failures. It adds marginal value beyond annotations.

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 short sentences (12 words total) with no wasted text. The key purpose and sensitivity warning are front-loaded. Ideal conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description states the primary action and notes irreversibility, it lacks crucial context for a destructive tool: prerequisites (e.g., dag_id must reference an existing DAG), what triggers the output schema, or side effects on existing runs. The presence of an output schema mitigates some need, but more operational context would be beneficial.

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 description does not mention any of the three parameters (dag_id, conf, logical_date). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to provide any semantic meaning for the parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's bare definitions.

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 verb 'Trigger' and resource 'a new DAG run', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dag_run (retrieve) and list_dag_runs (list). The additional note 'Sensitive: creates a new, irreversible execution' reinforces the action.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but not contrasted. For example, no mention that this is for starting a new run while get_dag_run is for retrieving an existing one.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools