Monitor active PostgreSQL connections, utilization, and idle-in-transaction warnings. Group by state, user, application, or client, and optionally include queries.
Show active database connections, utilization, and idle-in-transaction warnings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_by | No | ||
| include_queries | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that idle-in-transaction warnings are surfaced, implying a read/display operation with diagnostic content, but says nothing about permissions, whether it is read-only, cost, or result shape.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately lean for a lightweight inspection tool, though it is terse enough that nothing is spent on disambiguation.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, one sentence is only partially sufficient. It sketches the return content but does not explain how grouping or query inclusion alters results, nor any operational prerequisites.
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 0% and neither parameter (group_by, include_queries) is mentioned in the description. The group_by enum values are somewhat self-explanatory in the schema, but the description fails to explain grouping behavior or what include_queries changes in the output.
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-plus-resource ('Show active database connections') and enumerates the substance returned (utilization, idle-in-transaction warnings). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_slow_queries or list_objects, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.
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 purpose implies when it applies (inspecting live connection state), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent must infer it is for connection monitoring versus diagnose_database or get_slow_queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.