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 partitions

list_partitions
Read-only

Inspect how a PostgreSQL table is partitioned: returns partitioned status, strategy, and each partition's name and bounds, so you can verify layout before queries or maintenance.

Instructions

Describe how a table is partitioned (strategy and bounds) and list its partitions. Returns an object with partitioned (bool), strategy ('range' / 'list' / 'hash' or null), and partitions (a list of {name, bounds} for each partition).

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>",
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "list_partitions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableYes
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
strategyYes
partitionsYes
partitionedYes

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds some value by explaining how non-partitioned tables are represented (partitioned=false, strategy=null) rather than erroring, but it says nothing about permissions, error modes, or cost on large partitioned tables.

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, with no filler. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema, but it is compact 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 read-only introspection tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the definition covers what the tool does and how to interpret the non-partitioned case. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of the secondary-database targeting behavior or of failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% — just the optional `database` param is documented in the schema, and that documentation lives in the schema, not the description. The description adds no meaning for `schema` or `table`, and does not explain that `database` targets a read-only secondary; for a low-coverage schema the description should compensate and it does not.

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: it both describes the partitioning strategy/bounds of a table and enumerates the partitions. This is much more precise than the bare name, though it never distinguishes the tool from near neighbors like describe_table or get_pg19_partitions_status.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the table must exist in the given schema), and no routing to alternatives such as describe_table or get_pg19_partitions_status. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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