Read PostgreSQL configuration settings from pg_settings, optionally filtering by name pattern or target, to inspect current database tuning.
[READ] Configuration parameters from pg_settings.
Args:
pattern: Optional case-insensitive substring to filter setting names
(e.g. 'work_mem', 'autovacuum').
target: Target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| pattern | 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 declares this a safe read operation, so the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant. The description adds nothing about permissions, scope of settings returned, or output behavior, but it does not contradict anything either.
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?
Front-loaded one-line summary followed by two tight argument descriptions; no wasted prose, though the Args block is mechanical.
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 2-optional-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers both parameters and the data source. It could note what is returned (a settings list) but the pg_settings reference conveys that adequately.
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 both parameters, and it does: 'pattern' is described as a case-insensitive substring filter with examples, and 'target' is explained as a config target name. 'target' is still slightly vague ('from config'), preventing a 5.
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 verb (read) and resource (configuration parameters from pg_settings), which cleanly separates it from the mutation sibling update_setting. It is clear but never explicitly names or contrasts with any sibling.
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 gives no when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g. update_setting for changes). Usage is only implied by the '[READ]' tag and the fact that it reads config.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.