db-mcp

get_indexes

Retrieve indexes for a table, including access method, uniqueness, primary key status, ordered columns, and partial-index predicate.

Instructions

List indexes on a table: name, access method (btree/gin/gist/...), uniqueness, whether it backs the primary key, ordered columns with sort direction and NULLS ordering, and any partial-index predicate.

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": {
      "table": "<table>"
    },
    "name": "get_indexes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes	Table name.
`schema`	No	Schema name. Defaults to the server's default schema.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the tool as listing indexes (a read-only operation) and lists the exact fields returned. It does not disclose any side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is clear.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently enumerates the returned attributes. It is concise but the enumeration could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks detail on the output format but is sufficient for an AI agent to understand its function.

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%, so the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The description focuses on output, not input parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists indexes on a table and enumerates the specific details returned (name, access method, uniqueness, primary key backing, columns with sort direction, partial-index predicate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_table and get_relationships.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like describe_table or get_relationships. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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

Deploy Server