Postgres MCP Pro

get_database_info

Retrieve essential PostgreSQL database details: version, size, extensions, and server settings. Optionally specify a database URL to inspect a different database.

Instructions

Get general database information: version, size, extensions, server settings.

Args:
    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": "get_database_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`database_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.2Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The read-only 'Get' verb and the listed return categories make the behavior reasonably clear, and the args note explains the DATABASE_URL/.env fallback. It stops short of describing response format, permissions, or error behavior, but for a simple informational tool this is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, uses a compact listing of information categories, and includes a short Args note. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what information is returned and how the parameter behaves. It lacks an explicit note about response format or error conditions, but these are not critical for invoking this tool correctly.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so meaningfully by stating that database_url is optional and that omitting it falls back to DATABASE_URL from .env. This adds real value beyond the schema's bare type/default info, though URL format details are not specified.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('database information'), and enumerates the content categories: version, size, extensions, server settings. This makes it distinct from the more specific sibling tools like get_table_sizes or list_schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'general' implies an overview use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage differentiation is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server