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 foreign servers

list_foreign_servers
Read-only

Lists foreign servers defined in a PostgreSQL database, including their FDW, type, version, and options to inspect external data connections.

Instructions

List the foreign servers defined in the database, with their FDW and options. Returns a list of objects with name, wrapper (foreign-data wrapper name), type, version, and options (dict of server options).

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_foreign_servers"
  }
}

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
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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 adds useful context that servers are enumerated with their wrapper and options, but spends most of its words restating the return shape that the output schema already provides. It says nothing about catalog visibility/permission effects, which would be genuinely additive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the result contents. The second sentence is largely redundant with the output schema, but the whole text is short and free of 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?

A zero-required-parameter, read-only catalog listing with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage has low informational demands, and the description covers purpose and contents. Sibling disambiguation is the main thing 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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'database' parameter is fully documented in-schema, including the secondary read-only database targeting and the rejection of unconfigured names. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List the foreign servers defined in the database') and names the scope ('with their FDW and options'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like list_foreign_data_wrappers, list_foreign_tables, or list_redis_foreign_servers, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 by the phrase 'defined in the database' – an agent can infer this is catalog discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-a-sibling guidance and no stated prerequisitives or exclusions, leaving the agent to reason about alternatives on its own.

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