Postgres MCP Pro

list_objects

Read-only

List all objects in a PostgreSQL schema by type: table, view, sequence, or extension.

Instructions

List objects in a schema

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_name": "<schema_name>"
    },
    "name": "list_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`schema_name`	Yes	Schema name
`object_type`	No	Object type: 'table', 'view', 'sequence', or 'extension'	table

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation; it simply restates the tool's purpose in a generic way. It does not mention pagination, default object_type behavior, or scope limitations, and because annotations already declare read-only, the description provides no additional transparency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise (a single sentence) and free of fluff, but it is also under-specified and essentially repeats the title. It lacks any structured detail (e.g., parameter mentions, usage context) that would make the sentence earn its place beyond the obvious.

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, the input schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and presence of an output schema provide sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly. The description, while minimal, correctly states the high-level function, which is adequate for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters (schema_name required, object_type with allowed values), giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already handles the semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (objects in a schema), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not mention the object types or differentiate from sibling tools like get_object_details, so it lacks the scope and differentiation needed for a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_schemas or get_object_details. There is no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, so the agent receives no decision-support information.

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

Deploy Server