pg-aiguide
Server Details
Comprehensive PostgreSQL documentation and best practices, including ecosystem tools
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- timescale/pg-aiguide
- GitHub Stars
- 1,786
- Server Listing
- pg-aiguide
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_docs is for searching documentation, while view_skill is for retrieving detailed skill information. There is no overlap in functionality, and an agent would easily differentiate between them based on their descriptions.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (search_docs and view_skill). The naming is clear, predictable, and uses the same convention throughout, making it easy for agents to understand the action and target of each tool.
With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a PostgreSQL/TimescaleDB guidance domain. The available skills list suggests a rich set of topics (e.g., table design, hypertables, vector search), but the tool surface is too thin to cover these adequately, limiting agent capabilities.
The tool set is severely incomplete for the inferred domain of PostgreSQL/TimescaleDB guidance. While search_docs and view_skill provide access to documentation and skills, there are obvious gaps: no tools for executing operations (e.g., designing tables, setting up hypertables, migrating data) or interactive guidance, which are core to the domain as suggested by the skills list.
Available Tools
2 toolssearch_docsSearch DocumentationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search documentation with hybrid semantic (vector) and keyword (BM25) search. Use semanticWeight to choose keyword-only (0), semantic-only (1), or a blend; mid values fuse rankings with RRF. Supports Tiger Cloud (TimescaleDB), PostgreSQL, and PostGIS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | The maximum number of matches to return. Defaults to 20. | |
| query | Yes | The search query. Used for BM25 when keyword or hybrid search applies, and for the embedding when semantic or hybrid search applies. | |
| source | Yes | The documentation source to search. "tiger" for Tiger Cloud and TimescaleDB, "postgres" for PostgreSQL, "postgis" for PostGIS spatial extension. Specific versions provided with _X.X suffixes. | |
| semanticWeight | Yes | Controls the balance between semantic and keyword search. 0 = keyword only, 0.5 = equal mix, 1 = semantic only. Default is 0.7 (favor semantic search). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the hybrid search mechanism (semantic and BM25), the effect of semanticWeight, and the supported sources (Tiger Cloud, PostgreSQL, PostGIS). Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds algorithm details without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the key parameter and supported sources. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, the input schema fully documents all parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers the search algorithm and supported sources. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for the semanticWeight parameter ('mid values fuse rankings with RRF') but does not add meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool performs a hybrid semantic and keyword search on documentation, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'view_skill' which likely views a specific skill. The verb 'search' and resource 'documentation' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, beyond implying it is for searching documentation. It lacks when-not or when-to-use conditions, but the sibling tool context provides some implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
view_skillView SkillCRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve detailed skills for TimescaleDB operations and best practices.
Available Skills
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | A relative path to a file or directory within the skill to view. If empty, will view the `SKILL.md` file by default. Use `.` to list the root directory of the skill. | |
| skill_name | Yes | The name of the skill to browse, or `.` to list all available skills. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The content of the file or directory listing. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description merely states 'Retrieve' which aligns but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention that skills are viewed from a local store or any rate limits or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dominated by a large list of available skills, which is not concise and obscures the basic purpose of the tool. The first sentence is clear, but the following list is excessive and could be referenced via the tool itself (e.g., setting skill_name to '.').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It does cover the basic purpose and provides a list of skills, but the description is not fully complete for an agent to understand edge cases (e.g., what happens if skill_name is invalid).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the parameter descriptions in the schema are sufficient. The tool's description is mostly a list of available skills, not parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Retrieve detailed skills for TimescaleDB operations and best practices,' clearly identifying the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'search_docs' for finding or searching skills. The tool is for viewing a specific skill's content, while search_docs likely searches across docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs the sibling 'search_docs.' The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or alternatives. An agent would have to infer from the schema that skill_name is required and that using '.' lists all skills.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.