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 sequences

list_sequences
Read-only

Inspect PostgreSQL sequence configuration and current state by listing sequences in a schema with data type, ranges, increment, cycle flag, and last value.

Instructions

List the sequences defined in a schema, with their range, increment, and last value. Returns a list of objects with name, data_type, start_value, min_value, max_value, increment, cycle (bool), last_value.

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_sequences"
  }
}

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

A3.5/5.0
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 that results are per-schema and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about permissions, behavior on an empty or nonexistent schema, or how the primary vs secondary database affects results.

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 mostly restates the return shape that the output schema already provides, which is mild redundancy but still 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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with an output schema and covered safety annotations, so little explanation is required. The only real gap is the undocumented 'schema' argument and the lack of any cue distinguishing this from audit_sequences.

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 carries a thorough description about secondary read-only targets, while 'schema' is undocumented. The description implies the schema argument scopes the listing but adds no naming, default-schema, or resolution semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the sequences defined in a schema') and names the attributes it reports, so the agent knows exactly what the call returns. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby audit_sequences tool, which is the one ambiguity an agent could hit in this large sibling set.

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 implied by the scoping phrase 'defined in a schema', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer audit_sequences, and no prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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