Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PostgreSQL MCP by InsightfulPipe

by com.insightfulpipe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

postgresql Data Execute Action

execute_action
Destructive

Execute postgresql action (Step 3 (FINAL) of workflow).

REQUIRED: Complete these steps first using query_contexts:

  1. request='accounts' - Get workspace_id, brand_id, connection_slug AND available_actions

  2. request='actions_details' with actions=['xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx'] - Get detailed body structure for specific action(s) using actions from available_actions

IMPORTANT: Always call step 2 to see the exact body structure before executing.

execute_action runs write SQL (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL). Writes succeed only if your workspace role allows writes and the connected database role has the needed privileges.

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "execute_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the write SQL categories and stating that writes depend on both workspace role permissions and connected database role privileges.

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 front-loaded as the final workflow step, then uses numbered prerequisites and a clear warning. It is appropriately sized for a destructive workflow-gated tool, with only minor repetition between the workflow framing and the write SQL explanation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the destructive write behavior, prerequisite workflow, single opaque body parameter, and existing output schema, the description covers the key invocation requirements. It would be stronger with explicit transaction or irreversibility notes, but annotations already carry the destructive signal.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains that the body structure is action-specific and must be retrieved via query_contexts actions_details, but it does not describe any concrete fields or expected body shape.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states this is the final workflow step that runs write SQL (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL), which clarifies the otherwise generic name 'execute_action'. It also distinguishes itself from query_contexts by positioning that tool as a prerequisite rather than an alternative execution path.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit required prerequisites: call query_contexts with request='accounts' and then request='actions_details' before executing. The instruction to always call step 2 is strong usage guidance, though it does not explicitly say when to use query_data instead for read-only queries.

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

All PostgreSQL MCP by InsightfulPipe toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources