postgres-mcp-server

list_objects

List tables, views, sequences, extensions, or materialized views in a PostgreSQL schema. Filter by name and optionally target a different server or database.

Instructions

List tables, views, materialized views, sequences, or extensions in a schema. Requires active connection. Optionally use server/database/targetSchema params for one-time execution on a different server.

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": {
      "schema": "<schema>"
    },
    "name": "list_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`schema`	Yes	Schema name to list objects from (e.g., 'public')
`objectType`	No	Type of objects to list	all
`filter`	No	Filter objects by name (case-insensitive partial match)
`server`	No	One-time server override. Execute on this server without changing main connection.
`database`	No	One-time database override. Uses this database for execution.
`targetSchema`	No	One-time schema override. Sets search_path for this execution only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.3May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses need for active connection and one-time nature of override params, but lacks detail on error cases or output behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second adds usage guidance. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Covers main purpose, prerequisites, and optional overrides. Missing output format or return value description, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description mostly restates parameter purposes (e.g., 'one-time execution'), adding minimal new meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states it lists specific object types (tables, views, etc.) in a schema, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on schema-level objects.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Mentions prerequisite 'Requires active connection' and explains when to use optional overrides. Does not explicitly list alternatives but context makes differentiation clear.

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