Skip to main content
Glama
antonorlov

MCP PostgreSQL Server

list_schemas

Retrieve all database schemas to understand the structure and organization of PostgreSQL databases for efficient data management and query planning.

Instructions

List all schemas in the database

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'list_schemas' tool. It ensures a database connection, queries the information_schema.schemata for all schema names, and returns the results as JSON.
    private async handleListSchemas() {
      await this.ensureConnection();
    
      try {
        const result = await this.client!.query(`
          SELECT schema_name
          FROM information_schema.schemata
          ORDER BY schema_name
        `);
        
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: JSON.stringify(result.rows, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `Failed to list schemas: ${getErrorMessage(error)}`
        );
      }
    }
  • src/index.ts:263-264 (registration)
    Dispatch registration in the CallToolRequestSchema handler switch statement, routing 'list_schemas' calls to the handleListSchemas method.
    case 'list_schemas':
      return await this.handleListSchemas();
  • Tool registration in the ListToolsRequestSchema response, defining the name, description, and empty input schema for 'list_schemas'.
    {
      name: 'list_schemas',
      description: 'List all schemas in the database',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
        required: [],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or the format of the returned list. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context. For a tool that likely returns a list of schemas, more information on output format or dependencies would improve completeness.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all schemas in the database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'describe_table', which might handle similar database metadata operations, so it misses the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_tables' or 'describe_table'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a database connection is needed) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/antonorlov/mcp-postgres-server'

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