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

Run advisors

run_advisors
Read-only

Detect schema issues via catalog-driven advisory rules: missing primary keys, unindexed foreign keys, duplicate indexes, and nullable timestamps without time zone. Returns findings only; no writes.

Instructions

Run a set of catalog-driven advisor rules against a schema and return the aggregated findings. Rules cover missing primary keys, unindexed foreign keys, duplicate indexes, and nullable timestamps without time zone. Advisory only — no writes.

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": "run_advisors"
  }
}

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
schemaYes
findingsYes
rules_runYes

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Advisory only — no writes' largely restates what the agent already knows. The description does add that findings are aggregated and catalog-driven, but it says nothing about cost, how many rules run, or whether findings are ordered/severity-ranked.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler: the action comes first, the covered rule set second, and the read-only guarantee last. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return formatting needn't be explained, and the read-only profile is covered by annotations plus the closing sentence. The main residual gap is the ambiguity around the required 'schema' argument's identifier format.

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 coverage is only 50%: the optional 'database' parameter is well documented in the schema, but the required 'schema' parameter has no description there and the description only says 'against a schema' without clarifying whether it is a name, an OID, or a qualified identifier. The description therefore does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 gives a specific verb ('Run advisor rules') and resource ('against a schema') and enumerates the rule categories checked (missing primary keys, unindexed foreign keys, duplicate indexes, nullable timestamps without time zone). That makes it clearly distinct from generic siblings like audit_database or recommend_indexes, though it never names an alternative outright.

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: point it at a schema to get advisory findings. There is no explicit when-to-use versus neighbors such as recommend_indexes, find_unused_objects, or audit_database, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the schema must exist or whether the catalog must be readable).

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