Postgres MCP Pro

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 only states the basic action without mentioning permissions needed, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns a list of database objects.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'List objects in a schema', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of listing database objects, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'objects' entail (e.g., tables, views), how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. This makes it inadequate for proper tool selection and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters (schema_name and object_type with its default and allowed values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'List objects in a schema' clearly states the action (list) and target (objects in a schema), but it's vague about what 'objects' specifically means and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_schemas' or 'get_object_details'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or resource type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_schemas' (for listing schemas instead of objects within them) or 'get_object_details' (for detailed object information), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for use.

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