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

List audit events

list_audit_events
Read-only

Retrieve recent PostgreSQL audit events, newest first, optionally filtered by tool name; returns an empty list if audit persistence has not been enabled.

Instructions

List recent rows from mcpg_audit.events (newest first). Returns an empty list when MCPG_AUDIT_PERSIST has never been turned on (no audit table yet). Optionally filter by tool name.

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": "list_audit_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNo
limitNo
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
resultYes

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, non-open-world read. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: result ordering, and the important failure mode that an empty list means the audit table has never been created rather than that no events matched. It says nothing about volume limits or truncation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, followed by the one genuinely non-obvious caveat. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description covers the resource, ordering, optional filter, and empty-result cause. The remaining gap is the meaning of `limit` and any guidance on relating this to the chain-verification sibling.

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 33%; the `database` parameter is well documented in the schema, but `tool` and `limit` have no schema descriptions. The description clarifies that `tool` is an optional filter but does not state the match semantics (exact vs substring) or what `limit` defaults to or caps at, so it only partially compensates.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List recent rows from mcpg_audit.events") and states ordering ("newest first"), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling verify_audit_chain, which is the main source of ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: read audit events, optionally narrowed by tool name. There is no statement of when to prefer this over verify_audit_chain or when paging/limits should be tuned, and no prerequisites are mentioned beyond the empty-list caveat.

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