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

Get data checksums status

get_data_checksums_status
Read-only

Checks whether PostgreSQL 19's online data_checksums toggle is usable and reports the current setting or version fallback guidance. Never raises; returns availability, version, enabled state, and detail.

Instructions

Report whether PG 19's online data_checksums toggle is usable + the current setting. Never raises — driver-level errors surface as available=false. On PG ≤ 18 reports available=false but still surfaces the current state (set at initdb time) so the agent has context, and points at the offline pg_checksums fallback. Returns an object with available (bool), server_version_num (int), server_version, enabled (bool / null), and detail (guidance string).

Example: get_data_checksums_status()

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": "get_data_checksums_status"
  }
}

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
detailYes
enabledYes
availableYes
server_versionYes
server_version_numYes

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two high-value behavioral traits an agent cannot infer: it never raises, and driver-level errors are converted into `available=false`. It also explains the version-gated branch (PG ≤ 18 still returns state plus fallback guidance), which prevents the agent from misreading a `false` as a failure.

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?

The key behavior (what is reported, never raises) is front-loaded, and the version-branch detail follows logically. The trailing example `get_data_checksums_status()` is redundant given a zero-required-parameter tool, but the rest of the text is dense with useful content.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, version behavior, error handling, and fallback path. The return-field enumeration overlaps the output schema somewhat, and the `database` targeting behavior is left entirely to the schema, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

The single `database` parameter already has full schema documentation (100% coverage) explaining that it targets a configured secondary and that unconfigured names are rejected. The description never mentions this parameter, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific resource and setting: PG 19's online `data_checksums` toggle, and states exactly what is reported (usability + current setting). An agent can distinguish this from nearby tools like `audit_settings` or `inspect_guc` because the scope is pinned to one specific setting and its online-toggle capability.

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?

It gives clear usage context by version: on PG 19 it reports the online toggle, and on PG ≤ 18 it returns `available=false` while still surfacing initdb-time state and pointing at the offline `pg_checksums` fallback. What is missing is explicit routing against sibling tools (e.g., when to prefer this over `inspect_guc` or `audit_settings`), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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