PostgreSQL 데이터베이스 쿼리를 직접 실행할 수 있는 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP) 서버입니다. 이 서버는 매개변수화된 쿼리와 구성 가능한 시간 제한을 지원하여 PostgreSQL 데이터베이스에 대한 사용자 지정 SQL 쿼리 실행을 가능하게 합니다. 이 프로젝트는 Cursor IDE와 함께 사용하도록 특별히 설계되었습니다.
노드.js >= 18.0.0
PostgreSQL 서버(대상 데이터베이스 작업용)
대상 PostgreSQL 인스턴스에 대한 네트워크 액세스
Related MCP server: PostgreSQL MCP Server
Smithery를 통해 Claude Desktop용 PostgreSQL 데이터베이스 쿼리 서버를 자동으로 설치하려면:
지엑스피1
저장소를 복제합니다
종속성 설치:
npm install서버를 빌드하세요:
npm run buildMCP 설정 파일에 추가:
{
"mcpServers": {
"postgresql-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/Users/1Levick3/Desktop/postgresql-mcp-server/build/index.js"],
"disabled": false,
"alwaysAllow": [],
"env": {
"POSTGRES_CONNECTION_STRING": "postgresUrl",
"POSTGRES_SSL_CERT_PATH": "/Users/1levick3/Desktop/root.crt"
}
}
}
}npm run dev - 핫 리로드로 개발 서버 시작
npm run lint - ESLint 실행
npm test - 테스트 실행
연결 보안
연결 풀링을 사용합니다
연결 시간 초과를 구현합니다
연결 문자열을 검증합니다
SSL/TLS 연결을 지원합니다
저장소를 포크하세요
기능 브랜치 생성
변경 사항을 커밋하세요
지점으로 밀어 넣기
풀 리퀘스트 만들기
Execute a custom SQL query against the database. WARNING: Use with care. Do not expose to untrusted input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connectionString | Yes | PostgreSQL connection string | |
| query | Yes | SQL query to execute | |
| values | No | Optional parameter values for the query | |
| timeout | No | Optional query timeout in milliseconds |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: that this is a potentially dangerous operation (executing arbitrary SQL), includes security warnings, and implies it can modify data. However, it doesn't specify what happens on success/failure, whether transactions are used, or what format results are returned in.
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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides critical warnings. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
For a potentially destructive database operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the dangerous nature and security considerations well, but doesn't explain what happens on execution (e.g., returns results, affects rows), error handling, or result formats, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value regarding parameter usage or 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('custom SQL query against the database'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes what this tool does from potential alternatives by specifying it's for custom SQL execution rather than predefined operations.
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 provides clear contextual guidance with the 'WARNING: Use with care. Do not expose to untrusted input' statement, which helps the agent understand appropriate usage scenarios and security considerations. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternative query methods or database tools since no sibling tools are listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
execute_custom_queryScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern (execute_custom_query), and there are no other tools to create inconsistency. The naming is straightforward and predictable.
A single tool for a PostgreSQL server is too few for the apparent scope, as it lacks basic CRUD operations, schema management, or other database functions. This minimal set limits functionality and forces all interactions through a generic query tool.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a database server. There are no tools for common operations like listing tables, inserting data, or managing connections, leaving significant gaps that will cause agent failures in typical database workflows.
Hosted MCP server for PostgreSQL diagnostics: slow queries, missing indexes, connection pressure.
Comprehensive PostgreSQL documentation and best practices, including ecosystem tools
MCP server for interacting with the Supabase platform
