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 WAL archive status

get_wal_archive_status
Read-only

Report WAL archiving health to detect failing archive_command or archive_library early and prevent silent WAL buildup from filling pg_wal.

Instructions

Report WAL-archiving health from pg_stat_archiver + the archive-mode GUCs — the early-warning signal for a failing archive_command / archive_library (full archive volume, bad object-store credentials, network partition), which otherwise silently accumulates WAL in pg_wal/ until the volume fills. Companion to read_pg_wal_records (which inspects WAL records); this covers the WAL archive. Read-only; never raises. The archive_command string is NOT echoed (it can embed credentials) — only a boolean archive_command_set. Returns an object with available, archiving_enabled, archive_mode, archive_command_set, archived_count, last_archived_wal, last_archived_time, failed_count, last_failed_wal, last_failed_time, stats_reset, healthy (bool — false when archiving is on and the latest attempt failed), and detail.

Example: get_wal_archive_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_wal_archive_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
healthyYes
availableYes
stats_resetYes
archive_modeYes
failed_countYes
archived_countYes
last_failed_walYes
last_failed_timeYes
archiving_enabledYes
last_archived_walYes
last_archived_timeYes
archive_command_setYes

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it never raises, it deliberately suppresses the archive_command string because it can embed credentials (returning only a boolean), and it defines the semantics of `healthy` as false when archiving is on and the latest attempt failed. That is exactly the kind of sensitive-data and edge-case disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then failure modes, then the sibling distinction, then return fields — every sentence carries information and nothing is padding. It loses a point for enumerating all thirteen return fields even though an output schema exists, which is partially redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-required-parameter diagnostic read with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, urgency, failure modes, credential safety, and result semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret it is missing.

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 single `database` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the list_databases id constraint and primary-vs-secondary behavior. The description says nothing about the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Report WAL-archiving health from pg_stat_archiver + the archive-mode GUCs") and immediately distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling: read_pg_wal_records inspects WAL records, this covers the WAL archive. An agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering scenario — the early-warning signal for a failing archive_command/archive_library that silently accumulates WAL in pg_wal/ — and names the alternative it complements. There is no explicit "don't use this for X" exclusion, but the sibling boundary is drawn precisely enough for correct 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