Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCPg - Production-grade PostgreSQL MCP Server

MCPg - Production-grade PostgreSQL MCP Server

by devopam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Check database health

check_database_health
Read-only

Runs PostgreSQL health checks for connection utilization, buffer cache hit ratio, vacuum needs, and invalid indexes, returning overall status and per-check details.

Instructions

Run database health checks: connection utilisation, buffer cache hit ratio, tables needing vacuum, and invalid indexes. Returns an object with status ('ok' / 'warning' / 'critical') and checks (a list of {name, status, detail} per check).

Example: check_database_health()

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_database_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
databaseNoOptional: a database id from list_databases, to target a configured secondary (read-only) database; omit for the primary. Database names that are not configured ids are rejected.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checksYes
statusYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / database / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: target a configured secondary (read-only) database by name; omit for the primary. Call list_databases to see the configured ids."New value: +"Optional: a database id from list_databases, to target a configured secondary (read-only) database; omit for the primary. Database names that are not configured ids are rejected."
  2. First observedv0.6.8

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by naming the four concrete checks and the severity model ('ok'/'warning'/'critical'), which tells the agent what a call actually costs and what signal it yields. It does not say whether thresholds are configurable or whether the check is expensive on large clusters.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the checks, then the return shape. The return-shape sentence is partly redundant given an output schema exists, and the `check_database_health()` example adds little since it passes no arguments, but neither is costly.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, so the description needn't explain them. However, for a health/diagnostic tool it leaves out what the status levels mean operationally, and it ignores the optional secondary-database targeting that changes what is being checked.

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% and the sole parameter's description already explains the primary-vs-secondary targeting and the rejection of non-configured names. The tool description says nothing about the `database` argument, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run database health checks") and enumerates the exact checks performed: connection utilisation, buffer cache hit ratio, vacuum-needed tables, invalid indexes. That is far more precise than the title alone, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostics such as audit_database or run_advisors.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives among the many diagnostic siblings (audit_database, run_advisors, analyze_table_bloat). The agent must infer the invocation context purely from the tool name.

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