MCPg - Production-grade PostgreSQL MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Verify connection encryption

verify_connection_encryption

Read-only

Check whether the current PostgreSQL connection is TLS-encrypted and report protocol version, cipher, key bits, plus a cluster-wide tally of encrypted vs unencrypted backends.

Instructions

Report whether MCPg's own connection to PostgreSQL is TLS-encrypted, including the negotiated protocol version, cipher, and key bits (from pg_stat_ssl). Also returns a cluster-wide tally of encrypted vs unencrypted backends (a lower bound under non-superuser privileges). Complements the startup TLS-enforcement check by confirming the live connection actually came up encrypted.

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_connection_encryption"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`database`	No	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.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ssl`	Yes
`bits`	Yes
`cipher`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`total_connections`	Yes
`encrypted_connections`	Yes
`unencrypted_connections`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.4Nov 5, 2026

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."

First observedv0.6.8Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the source view (pg_stat_ssl), the caveat that the cluster-wide tally is a lower bound under non-superuser privileges, and the negotiated TLS fields returned. That privilege caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope caveat and sibling relationship. Dense with useful detail and no filler, though the parenthetical about pg_stat_ssl is slightly cluttered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the key fields and the privilege caveat. Combined with the single well-documented parameter and read-only annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 sole 'database' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the secondary-database targeting rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report whether MCPg's own connection to PostgreSQL is TLS-encrypted') and names the exact data source (pg_stat_ssl). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the startup TLS-enforcement check, so an agent can separate it from the sibling security tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear use context: confirms the live connection actually came up encrypted, as a complement to the startup enforcement check. It does not state exclusions or name a concrete alternative tool to call instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server