PeerDB MCP

get_peer_slots

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect PostgreSQL replication slots and lag for a specified source peer to diagnose replication issues.

Instructions

Inspect PostgreSQL replication slots and lag for a source peer.

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": {
      "peer_name": "<peer_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_peer_slots"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`peer_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that it is PostgreSQL-specific and that it targets source peers rather than destinations, but it says nothing about auth requirements, behavior on a non-source peer, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only single-parameter call and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. What is inspected is clear; only the edge case of calling it against a non-source peer is left unaddressed.

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% for the single peer_name parameter, and the schema provides only a pattern and length bounds, no meaning. The description partially compensates by implying the peer must be a source peer, but gives no format, example, or lookup hint for the name.

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 names a specific verb (inspect) and resource (PostgreSQL replication slots and lag) and scopes it to a source peer, which is more precise than the sibling names like get_pipeline_status. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as diagnose_pipeline or get_pipeline_errors, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'for a source peer' implies a precondition but never states what to do for a destination peer or which sibling to pick when diagnosing replication issues.

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

Deploy Server