mcp-postgres

pg_insert

Insert one or more rows into a PostgreSQL table and return the inserted rows.

Instructions

Insert one or more rows into a table. Returns inserted rows.

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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "table": "<table>",
      "columns": "<columns>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "pg_insert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`table`	Yes	Table name
`schema`	No	Schema name (default: 'public')
`target`	Yes	Target name from ~/.dbx/targets/
`values`	Yes	JSON array of values to insert (matches column order)
`columns`	Yes	JSON array of column names

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2026.4.10-3Jul 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions mutation and return of inserted rows, but lacks details on transaction behavior, error handling, authentication needs, or batch limits.

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, front-loaded with action and result, no extraneous information. Efficient and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Missing output schema and annotations. Description does not specify return format, multiple row insertion behavior, error handling, or dependency on a prior connection. Incomplete for a write tool.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema, but schema descriptions are clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states verb 'insert', resource 'rows into a table', and outcome 'Returns inserted rows'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like pg_update, pg_delete, pg_upsert.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., pg_upsert, pg_update). No mention of prerequisites like a valid connection or context for single vs batch inserts.

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