Retrieve columns, constraints, and indexes for any PostgreSQL table or view. Specify schema and object name.
Get columns, constraints, and indexes for a table or view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | Database alias to query. Omit to use the primary database. | |
| object_name | Yes | Table, view, sequence, or extension name | |
| object_type | No | table | |
| schema_name | Yes | Schema name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, performance impact, or other behavioral traits beyond what is inferred from name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy, but omits mention of all supported object types, slightly reducing accuracy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description partly covers return values (columns, constraints, indexes) but not for all object types, and lacks error or permission context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds no meaning to parameters; schema already describes them at 75% coverage, but the description does not clarify how parameters relate to the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves columns, constraints, and indexes for a table or view, but omits sequences and extensions as valid object types, making it slightly inaccurate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like list_objects or explain_query; lacks context for appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shubham4038/postgres-mcp-js'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server