Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Postgres MCP Pro

Postgres MCP Pro

by sparta2025
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

analyze_index_performance

Analyze index usage in a PostgreSQL schema to reveal unused or duplicate indexes. Use the findings to remove waste and improve query performance.

Instructions

Analyze index usage and find unused/duplicate indexes.

Args:
    schema_name: Schema to analyze (default: "public").
    database_url: Database URL (optional, uses DATABASE_URL from .env if omitted).

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": "analyze_index_performance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schema_nameNopublic
database_urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains configuration defaults such as the public schema and DATABASE_URL fallback, but does not say whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or whether it has side effects or performance implications.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by concise argument descriptions. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of structured schema data.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The arguments are well documented, but there is no output schema and no description of what the tool returns or what a successful response looks like. For an analysis tool, the missing output and behavioral details create a notable gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clearly explaining both parameters: schema_name is the schema to analyze with a default of 'public', and database_url is optional and falls back to DATABASE_URL from .env. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Analyze index usage and find unused/duplicate indexes.' It is clear and distinguishes the tool's focus from most siblings, although it does not explicitly differentiate it from analyze_db_health.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for analyzing index usage and finding unused or duplicate indexes, which implies when it should be used. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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