Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
postgres-mcp-readonly

postgres-mcp-readonly

by mahin1995
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

db.relationships

List foreign-key relationships for all user tables or a single table to understand data dependencies and referential integrity.

Instructions

List foreign-key relationships for all user tables or one table.

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": "db.relationships"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableNo
databaseNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently indicates a read-only listing operation, but it does not describe output format, database parameter behavior, or whether system tables are excluded. The behavior is straightforward and consistent with the description, though minimal.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb 'List' and immediately states the resource and scope, making it extremely concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool is simple but still leaves gaps. The database parameter is unexplained, and the return format is unspecified. The description is a bare minimum, not a complete guide for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the table parameter is optional, allowing 'all user tables or one table,' but it provides no explanation of the database parameter. This leaves one of two parameters semantically undocumented, which is a significant gap.

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 action (List) and resource (foreign-key relationships), and specifies the scope as all user tables or one table. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like db.constraints and db.schema, which cover broader constraint or schema information.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to list foreign-key relationships, either across all user tables or for a single table. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage intent is evident and directly communicated.

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