Inspect PostgreSQL replication slots and flag inactive ones retaining WAL, so you can identify slots that consume disk space.
[READ] Replication slots, flagging inactive slots that retain WAL.
Args:
target: Target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and '[READ]' merely restates it. The description does add useful behavioral value by disclosing that it identifies inactive slots retaining WAL, which tells the agent what the output is for, but it says nothing about ordering, fields, or thresholds.
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?
Very short and front-loaded; the purpose leads and the argument follows. The trailing 'Args:' block is slightly wasteful formatting but costs nothing in comprehension.
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?
With no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-value framing (inactive slots retaining WAL) and the sole parameter's meaning. It is close to sufficient for a single-parameter read-only diagnostic, missing only detail about the returned fields.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter alone, and it does: 'target' is a named target from config, and omitting it selects the default. That is exactly the semantics the schema lacks, though no format or valid-value examples are given.
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?
States a specific resource (replication slots) plus the key diagnostic behavior: flagging inactive slots that retain WAL. It is distinguishable from siblings like replication_status and wal_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
Usage is only implied — the topic (replication slots) tells an agent when it might be relevant, and the target guidance hints at multi-target setups, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many replication/WAL siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.