Yes separate repo, please and we would need someone to lead this effort on the proposal & development too. Avi - you are probably well equipped to lead it and I am sure more folks like Aaraon would be eager to work on its development and on-going maintenance.
Regards, Kaxil On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 15:25, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > Yep. Having MCP is cool and drawing our implementation from experiences and > usage of other MCP servers out there is even cooler (especially that we can > have some insights how people already use them with Airflow) - if we can > bring together a few of those, put some nice, relevant Airflow prompts. > Ideally we could have some examples of how MCP can be used taken from those > who are using airflow (the debugging example by Avi is cool) > > I am not sure implementing it as provider is really "the way" though - I > would rather see `apache-airflow-mcp" separate repo - it's so different and > distinct from airflow it does not really require any of Airflow internals > and code to be implemented - it makes very little sense to be the part of > airflow "workspace" where we would develop it together with airflow - > because if it will talk over the REST api, all we need is the `client` that > might be just a dependency. And there is even no reason for MCP and airflow > to be installed and developed together (that's the main reason why we want > providers to be kept in monorepo. > > J. > > > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:37 AM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Seems like a promising area to invest in given the benefits it can > provide > > to > > the users as mentioned by Shahar and Abhishek. > > > > Abhishek also has a promising talk submitted which i am looking forward > to > > this year at the summit. > > > > In any case, this seems to be one of the first of the very few > > implementations of trying > > to integrate Airflow officially / unofficially with an MCP server. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 2:56 AM Aaron Dantley <aarondant...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hey! > > > > > > I also think this is a great idea! > > > > > > Would it be possible to be included in the development process? > > > > > > Sorry I’m new to this group, but would appreciate any suggestions on > how > > to > > > contribute to the MCP server development! > > > > > > Regards! > > > Aaron > > > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 2:57 PM Avi <a...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Nice to see the idea to incorporate an official MCP server for > > > > Airflow. It's been really magical to see what a simple LLM can do > with > > an > > > > Airflow MCP server built just from APIs. > > > > > > > > A few things that I noticed in my experience: > > > > - The number of tools that the OpenAPI spec generates is quite huge. > > Most > > > > tools (*Claude, VS Code with GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf*) which > > > uses > > > > mcp-client limits it to a number of 100 tools. (*The read-only mode > > > creates > > > > less tools in comparison*.) > > > > - MCP server are just not tools. There are other things as well, like > > > > resources and prompts. Prompts are super helpful in case of debugging > > for > > > > example. It is a way of teaching LLM about Airflow. Say I want to > have > > a > > > > failing task investigated. A prompt can be helpful in letting LLM > know > > a > > > > step-by-step process of carrying out the investigation. > > > > - Where do you run the MCP server? I wouldn't want my laptop to do > the > > > > heavy processing, which would want us to go for the SSE instead of > > stdio. > > > > > > > > This is why I chose two different path of using mcp server with > > airflow, > > > > which I intend to talk about at the summit. > > > > > > > > 1. AI-Augmented Airflow - This helped me add a chat interface inside > > > > Airflow using a plugin to talk to an Airflow instance (read only > mode). > > > > > > > > 2. Airflow-Powered AI - Experimenting with this has been totally > > magical, > > > > how powerful AI can become when it has access to airflow. Also, a > > > directory > > > > structure to maintain the DAGs, and it can write DAGs on the fly. I > > > totally > > > > see a need where LLMs eventually will need a scheduler, although a > > > complete > > > > airflow just for an LLM might seem a bit overkill to the rest of the > > > > community. > > > > > > > > I chose to build this on top of open API is because that was the only > > way > > > > to get proper RBAC enabled. > > > > > > > > I have so many points to discuss. Would love to hear from the > community > > > and > > > > then take it forward. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Avi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 6:32 PM Aritra Basu < > aritrabasu1...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I definitely think there's potential to interact with an airflow > MCP > > > > > server. Though I think I'd be interested to see how many and how > > > > frequently > > > > > people are making use of MCP servers in the wild before investing > > > effort > > > > in > > > > > building and maintaining one for airflow. I'm sure the data is > > > available > > > > > out there, just needs finding. > > > > > -- > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Aritra Basu > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 May 2025, 11:18 pm Julian LaNeve, > > > > <jul...@astronomer.io.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think this would be interesting now that the Streamable HTTP > > spec < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-03-26/basic/transports> > > > > > > is out. I think in theory we could publish this first as an > Airflow > > > > > > provider that installs a plugin to expose an MCP endpoint, as a > > PoC - > > > > > this > > > > > > becomes a much nicer experience than a local stdio one. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Julian LaNeve > > > > > > CTO > > > > > > > > > > > > Email: jul...@astronomer.io > > > > > > <mailto:jul...@astronomer.io>Mobile: 330 509 5792 > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 28, 2025, at 1:25 PM, Shahar Epstein <sha...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear community, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Following the thread on Slack [1], initiated by Jason Sebastian > > > > Kusuma, > > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > like to start an effort to officially support MCP in Airflow's > > > > > codebase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Some background * > > > > > > > Model Context Protocol (MCP) is an open standard, open-source > > > > framework > > > > > > > that standardizes the way AI models like LLM integrate and > share > > > data > > > > > > with > > > > > > > external tools, systems and data sources. Think of it as a > "USB-C > > > for > > > > > > AI" - > > > > > > > a universal connector that simplifies and standardizes AI > > > > > integrations. A > > > > > > > notable example of an MCP server is GitHub's official > > > implementation > > > > > > [3], which > > > > > > > allows LLMs such as Claude, Copilot, and OpenAI (or: "MCP > > clients") > > > > to > > > > > > > fetch pull request details, analyze code changes, and generate > > > review > > > > > > > summaries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *How could an MCP server be useful in Airflow?* > > > > > > > Imagine the possibilities when LLMs can seamlessly interact > with > > > > > > Airflow’s > > > > > > > API: triggering DAGs using natural language, retrieving DAG run > > > > > history, > > > > > > > enabling smart debugging, and more. This kind of integration > > opens > > > > the > > > > > > door > > > > > > > to a more intuitive, conversational interface for workflow > > > > > orchestration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Why do we need to support it officially?* > > > > > > > Quid pro quo - LLMs become an integral part of the modern > > > development > > > > > > > experience, while Airflow evolves into the go-to for > > orchestrating > > > AI > > > > > > > workflows. By officially supporting it, we’ll enable multiple > > users > > > > to > > > > > > > interact with Airflow through their LLMs, streamlining > automation > > > and > > > > > > > improving accessibility across diverse workflows. All of that > is > > > > viable > > > > > > > with relatively small development effort (see next paragraph). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *How should it be implemented?* > > > > > > > As of today, there have been several implementations of MCP > > servers > > > > for > > > > > > > Airflow API, the most visible one [4] made by Abhishek Bhakat > > from > > > > > > > Astronomer. > > > > > > > The efforts of implementing it and maintaining it in our > codebase > > > > > > shouldn't > > > > > > > be too cumbersome (at least in theory), as we could utilize > > > packages > > > > > like > > > > > > > fastmcp to auto-generate the server using the existing OpenAPI > > > specs. > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > be very happy if Abhishek could share his experience in this > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Where else could we utilize MCP?* > > > > > > > Beyond the scope of the public API, I could also imagine using > it > > > to > > > > > > > communicate with Breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *How do we proceed from here?* > > > > > > > Feel free to share your thoughts here in this discussion. > > > > > > > If there are no objections, I'll be happy to start working on > an > > > AIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > Shahar Epstein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *References:* > > > > > > > [1] Slack discussion, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/C06K9Q5G2UA/p1746121916951569 > > > > > > > [2] Introducing the model context protocol, > > > > > > > https://www.anthropic.com/news/model-context-protocol > > > > > > > [3] GitHub Official MCP server, > > > > > > https://github.com/github/github-mcp-server > > > > > > > [4] Unofficial MCP Server made by Abhishek Hakat, > > > > > > > https://github.com/abhishekbhakat/airflow-mcp-server > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
