Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pg-mcp

pg-mcp

by andre-c-andersen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_objects

List objects in a database schema, including tables, views, sequences, or extensions, using a connection name for multi-database support.

Instructions

List objects in a schema

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": {
      "conn_name": "<conn_name>",
      "schema_name": "<schema_name>"
    },
    "name": "list_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conn_nameYesConnection name - see server instructions for available connections
schema_nameYesSchema name
object_typeNoObject type: 'table', 'view', 'sequence', or 'extension'table

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List objects in a schema', omitting details like result format, permissions, or performance implications.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it over-simplifies and omits useful details, making it slightly less effective.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how parameters relate (e.g., object_type default) or what the output represents.

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 parameters are already described. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List objects in a schema' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not mention the object_type parameter or differentiate from sibling tools like get_object_details or list_schemas.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (execute_sql, get_object_details, list_schemas). The description lacks context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools