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 functions

list_functions
Read-only

Lists the functions and procedures defined in a PostgreSQL schema, returning names, signatures, return types, and languages for catalog inspection.

Instructions

List the functions and procedures defined in a schema. Returns a list of objects with name, kind ('function' or 'procedure'), arguments (signature string), returns (return-type string), and language (plpgsql / sql / c / etc.).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "schema": "<schema>"
    },
    "name": "list_functions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaYes
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

A3.7/5.0
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 the shape of returned objects but says nothing about whether system/catalog schemas are included, what happens for a nonexistent schema, or whether results are paginated or bounded — the kind of context that would justify a 4 or 5.

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 the purpose in the first clause, then a compact enumeration of returned fields — no filler. The field enumeration partly duplicates the output schema, so it isn't perfectly economical, but it is short and readable.

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 simple two-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient: purpose, scope, and result contents are all covered. Only edge-case behavior (nonexistent schema, system schemas, result limits) 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 50%: the `database` parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, while `schema` is undocumented there but its meaning is obvious and partially implied by the description's 'defined in a schema'. The description adds no syntax, format, or qualification details beyond the schema, so the 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 ('List') and resource ('functions and procedures') and adds the scope ('defined in a schema'). This cleanly separates it from sibling introspection tools like list_tables, list_views and list_sequences without the agent needing to open any schema.

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: an agent can infer it should be called when it needs routine/procedure metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as get_compact_schema, generate_schema_docs or describe_tool for a broader picture.

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