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

Verify audit chain

verify_audit_chain
Read-only

Verify the HMAC-SHA256 signature chain of persisted audit events to detect tampering and identify where the chain breaks.

Instructions

Verify the HMAC-SHA256 signature chain of persisted audit events in mcpg_audit.events. Returns an object with verified (bool), events_checked (int), the first_event_id and last_event_id covered by the walk, and (on failure) error and first_invalid_id pointing at where the chain broke.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_audit_chain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

No arguments

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the walk covers a range and on failure reports `error` and `first_invalid_id` pointing at the break point, which tells the agent how to interpret partial results. It does not, however, mention cost or time proportional to event volume for a full chain walk.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the operation, then the return shape in a compact second sentence. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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, the description needn't restate every field, and it stays complete enough for a zero-required-parameter, read-only tool. The only mild gap is silence on the secondary-database targeting option and on how long a full chain verification may take.

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 100% and the single `database` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'rejected if not a configured id' constraint. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — notably it never mentions that a secondary read-only database can be targeted.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — verifying the HMAC-SHA256 signature chain of persisted audit events in mcpg_audit.events — which is unmistakably distinct from listing tools like list_audit_events. An agent can tell exactly what operation this performs without opening the 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 by the word 'Verify' — an agent can infer this is an integrity/tamper check rather than a read of event contents. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of list_audit_events as the complementary alternative.

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