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 triggers

list_triggers
Read-only

Lists user-defined triggers on a PostgreSQL table, returning trigger name, invoked function, and CREATE TRIGGER SQL for inspection.

Instructions

List the user-defined triggers on a table. Returns a list of objects with name, function (the called function's qualified name), and definition (the CREATE TRIGGER SQL).

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_triggers"
  }
}

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
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

B3.2/5.0
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 scope note that only user-defined triggers are returned, but it does not mention permission requirements or behavior on a nonexistent table — and its return-value sentence largely restates what the output schema already provides.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; no filler. The second sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple read tool with annotations and an output schema, so the return-shape sentence is unnecessary while the parameter explanation is thin. An agent can call it, but may be unsure about schema/table semantics and the secondary-database path.

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%: `schema` and `table` are bare strings in the schema. The description mentions "table" implicitly but never explains the schema/table pairing or how the optional `database` selector changes which instance is queried, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the user-defined triggers on a table") and adds a scope qualifier ("user-defined") that distinguishes it from system-trigger introspection. It is clearly separable from siblings such as list_constraints or list_indexes, though it does not explicitly acknowledge them.

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: the phrase "on a table" signals that a table context is required, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over describe_table or the DDL tools, and no mention of prerequisites or ordering relative to list_schemas/list_tables.

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