Skip to main content
Glama
PhySci

PostgreSQL MCP Server

by PhySci
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    Both tools have identical descriptions stating they 'Returns list of tables in the DB', creating severe ambiguity despite different names. An agent cannot reliably distinguish which tool retrieves column information versus table listings based on the provided descriptions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the 'get_' verb prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase (all_tables, table_columns), making the naming predictable and readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is minimal for a PostgreSQL server, covering only basic schema introspection. While not an extreme mismatch, it falls into the 'feels thin' category for the stated domain of database management.

    Completeness2/5

    Severely limited functionality lacking SQL query execution, data modification, index/constraints inspection, or schema management. Only supports listing tables and columns, making it inadequate for general database operations and likely to cause agent failures when attempting to retrieve or manipulate data.

  • Average 2.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to clarify whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Returns'), whether it requires specific database permissions, or what specific column metadata (names, types, constraints) is actually returned despite the name suggesting column retrieval.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is a single concise sentence, but given the misleading content regarding tables vs columns, the sentence does not earn its place effectively. It is brief but uninformative regarding the tool's actual purpose.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description fails to resolve the fundamental confusion between listing tables and retrieving columns, and does not explain the relationship to sibling 'get_all_tables'. For a database introspection tool, this ambiguity is a significant gap.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring guidelines, 0 parameters equals a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states it 'Returns list of tables in the DB', but this contradicts the tool name 'get_table_columns' which implies retrieving column metadata, not tables. It also fails to distinguish from sibling 'get_all_tables', creating confusion about which tool to use for listing tables versus retrieving column information.

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

    Usage Guidelines1/5

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

    Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_all_tables'. Given the description suggests both tools return lists of tables, the agent has no basis for selecting the correct tool for the user's actual intent (tables vs columns).

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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 but offers minimal information. It states the tool returns a list but omits: whether views/system tables are included, pagination behavior, or performance implications of listing all tables.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is extremely brief (6 words) and front-loaded, avoiding verbosity. However, it borders on under-specification—while no words are wasted, the single sentence structure provides no room for essential context that would help an agent understand scope or constraints.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description meets minimum requirements by identifying the operation scope ('in the DB'). However, it lacks completeness regarding what constitutes a 'table' (views? temporary tables? across all schemas?) which agents need for proper invocation.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has zero parameters, which according to the baseline rules warrants a score of 4. The input schema confirms no arguments are accepted, and the description doesn't need to elaborate on non-existent parameters.

    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 clearly states the verb (Returns) and resource (list of tables in the DB), providing a concrete purpose. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'get_table_columns'—it doesn't clarify that this tool requires no parameters while the sibling likely requires a table identifier.

    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?

    No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites (e.g., database connection requirements, permissions needed to view tables). The description stands alone without contextual workflow guidance.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PhySci/mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server