Skip to main content
Glama

License: MIT PyPI - Version Discord Twitter Follow Contributors

Overview

Postgres MCP Pro is an open source Model Context Protocol (MCP) server built to support you and your AI agents throughout the entire development process—from initial coding, through testing and deployment, and to production tuning and maintenance.

Postgres MCP Pro does much more than wrap a database connection.

Features include:

  • 🔍 Database Health - analyze index health, connection utilization, buffer cache, vacuum health, sequence limits, replication lag, and more.

  • ⚡ Index Tuning - explore thousands of possible indexes to find the best solution for your workload, using industrial-strength algorithms.

  • 📈 Query Plans - validate and optimize performance by reviewing EXPLAIN plans and simulating the impact of hypothetical indexes.

  • 🧠 Schema Intelligence - context-aware SQL generation based on detailed understanding of the database schema.

  • 🛡️ Safe SQL Execution - configurable access control, including support for read-only mode and safe SQL parsing, making it usable for both development and production.

Postgres MCP Pro supports both the Standard Input/Output (stdio) and Server-Sent Events (SSE) transports, for flexibility in different environments.

For additional background on why we built Postgres MCP Pro, see our launch blog post.

Related MCP server: Postgres MCP Pro

Demo

From Unusable to Lightning Fast

  • Challenge: We generated a movie app using an AI assistant, but the SQLAlchemy ORM code ran painfully slow.

  • Solution: Using Postgres MCP Pro with Cursor, we fixed the performance issues in minutes.

What we did:

  • 🚀 Fixed performance - including ORM queries, indexing, and caching

  • 🛠️ Fixed a broken page - by prompting the agent to explore the data, fix queries, and add related content.

  • 🧠 Improved the top movies - by exploring the data and fixing the ORM query to surface more relevant results.

See the video below or read the play-by-play.

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/24e05745-65e9-4998-b877-a368f1eadc13

Quick Start

Prerequisites

Before getting started, ensure you have:

  1. Access credentials for your database.

  2. Docker or Python 3.12 or higher.

Access Credentials

You can confirm your access credentials are valid by using psql or a GUI tool such as pgAdmin.

Docker or Python

The choice to use Docker or Python is yours. We generally recommend Docker because Python users can encounter more environment-specific issues. However, it often makes sense to use whichever method you are most familiar with.

Installation

Choose one of the following methods to install Postgres MCP Pro:

Option 1: Using Docker

Pull the Postgres MCP Pro MCP server Docker image. This image contains all necessary dependencies, providing a reliable way to run Postgres MCP Pro in a variety of environments.

docker pull crystaldba/postgres-mcp

Option 2: Using Python

If you have pipx installed you can install Postgres MCP Pro with:

pipx install postgres-mcp

Otherwise, install Postgres MCP Pro with uv:

uv pip install postgres-mcp

If you need to install uv, see the uv installation instructions.

Configure Your AI Assistant

We provide full instructions for configuring Postgres MCP Pro with Claude Desktop. Many MCP clients have similar configuration files, you can adapt these steps to work with the client of your choice.

Claude Desktop Configuration

You will need to edit the Claude Desktop configuration file to add Postgres MCP Pro. The location of this file depends on your operating system:

  • MacOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

  • Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

You can also use Settings menu item in Claude Desktop to locate the configuration file.

You will now edit the mcpServers section of the configuration file.

If you are using Docker
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "postgres": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "-i",
        "--rm",
        "-e",
        "DATABASE_URI",
        "crystaldba/postgres-mcp",
        "--access-mode=unrestricted"
      ],
      "env": {
        "DATABASE_URI": "postgresql://username:password@localhost:5432/dbname"
      }
    }
  }
}

The Postgres MCP Pro Docker image will automatically remap the hostname localhost to work from inside of the container.

  • MacOS/Windows: Uses host.docker.internal automatically

  • Linux: Uses 172.17.0.1 or the appropriate host address automatically

If you are using uvx
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "postgres": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "postgres-mcp",
        "--access-mode=unrestricted"
      ],
      "env": {
        "DATABASE_URI": "postgresql://username:password@localhost:5432/dbname"
      }
    }
  }
}
If you are using pipx
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "postgres": {
      "command": "postgres-mcp",
      "args": [
        "--access-mode=unrestricted"
      ],
      "env": {
        "DATABASE_URI": "postgresql://username:password@localhost:5432/dbname"
      }
    }
  }
}
If you are using uv
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "postgres": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "postgres-mcp",
        "--access-mode=unrestricted"
      ],
      "env": {
        "DATABASE_URI": "postgresql://username:password@localhost:5432/dbname"
      }
    }
  }
}
Connection URI

Replace postgresql://... with your Postgres database connection URI.

Access Mode

Postgres MCP Pro supports multiple access modes to give you control over the operations that the AI agent can perform on the database:

  • Unrestricted Mode: Allows full read/write access to modify data and schema. It is suitable for development environments.

  • Restricted Mode: Limits operations to read-only transactions and imposes constraints on resource utilization (presently only execution time). It is suitable for production environments.

To use restricted mode, replace --access-mode=unrestricted with --access-mode=restricted in the configuration examples above.

Other MCP Clients

Many MCP clients have similar configuration files to Claude Desktop, and you can adapt the examples above to work with the client of your choice.

  • If you are using Cursor, you can use navigate from the Command Palette to Cursor Settings, then open the MCP tab to access the configuration file.

  • If you are using Windsurf, you can navigate to from the Command Palette to Open Windsurf Settings Page to access the configuration file.

  • If you are using Goose run goose configure, then select Add Extension.

  • If you are using Qodo Gen, open the Chat panel, click Connect more tools, click + Add new MCP, then add the new configuration.

SSE Transport

Postgres MCP Pro supports the SSE transport, which allows multiple MCP clients to share one server, possibly a remote server. To use the SSE transport, you need to start the server with the --transport=sse option.

For example, with Docker run:

docker run -p 8000:8000 \
  -e DATABASE_URI=postgresql://username:password@localhost:5432/dbname \
  crystaldba/postgres-mcp --access-mode=unrestricted --transport=sse

Then update your MCP client configuration to call the the MCP server. For example, in Cursor's mcp.json or Cline's cline_mcp_settings.json you can put:

{
    "mcpServers": {
        "postgres": {
            "type": "sse",
            "url": "http://localhost:8000/sse"
        }
    }
}

For Windsurf, the format in mcp_config.json is slightly different:

{
    "mcpServers": {
        "postgres": {
            "type": "sse",
            "serverUrl": "http://localhost:8000/sse"
        }
    }
}

Postgres Extension Installation (Optional)

To enable index tuning and comprehensive performance analysis you need to load the pg_stat_statements and hypopg extensions on your database.

  • The pg_stat_statements extension allows Postgres MCP Pro to analyze query execution statistics. For example, this allows it to understand which queries are running slow or consuming significant resources.

  • The hypopg extension allows Postgres MCP Pro to simulate the behavior of the Postgres query planner after adding indexes.

Installing extensions on AWS RDS, Azure SQL, or Google Cloud SQL

If your Postgres database is running on a cloud provider managed service, the pg_stat_statements and hypopg extensions should already be available on the system. In this case, you can just run CREATE EXTENSION commands using a role with sufficient privileges:

CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pg_stat_statements;
CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS hypopg;

Installing extensions on self-managed Postgres

If you are managing your own Postgres installation, you may need to do additional work. Before loading the pg_stat_statements extension you must ensure that it is listed in the shared_preload_libraries in the Postgres configuration file. The hypopg extension may also require additional system-level installation (e.g., via your package manager) because it does not always ship with Postgres.

Usage Examples

Get Database Health Overview

Ask:

Check the health of my database and identify any issues.

Analyze Slow Queries

Ask:

What are the slowest queries in my database? And how can I speed them up?

Get Recommendations On How To Speed Things Up

Ask:

My app is slow. How can I make it faster?

Generate Index Recommendations

Ask:

Analyze my database workload and suggest indexes to improve performance.

Optimize a Specific Query

Ask:

Help me optimize this query: SELECT * FROM orders JOIN customers ON orders.customer_id = customers.id WHERE orders.created_at > '2023-01-01';

MCP Server API

The MCP standard defines various types of endpoints: Tools, Resources, Prompts, and others.

Postgres MCP Pro provides functionality via MCP tools alone. We chose this approach because the MCP client ecosystem has widespread support for MCP tools. This contrasts with the approach of other Postgres MCP servers, including the Reference Postgres MCP Server, which use MCP resources to expose schema information.

Postgres MCP Pro Tools:

Tool Name

Description

list_schemas

Lists all database schemas available in the PostgreSQL instance.

list_objects

Lists database objects (tables, views, sequences, extensions) within a specified schema.

get_object_details

Provides information about a specific database object, for example, a table's columns, constraints, and indexes.

execute_sql

Executes SQL statements on the database, with read-only limitations when connected in restricted mode.

explain_query

Gets the execution plan for a SQL query describing how PostgreSQL will process it and exposing the query planner's cost model. Can be invoked with hypothetical indexes to simulate the behavior after adding indexes.

get_top_queries

Reports the slowest SQL queries based on total execution time using pg_stat_statements data.

analyze_workload_indexes

Analyzes the database workload to identify resource-intensive queries, then recommends optimal indexes for them.

analyze_query_indexes

Analyzes a list of specific SQL queries (up to 10) and recommends optimal indexes for them.

analyze_db_health

Performs comprehensive health checks including: buffer cache hit rates, connection health, constraint validation, index health (duplicate/unused/invalid), sequence limits, and vacuum health.

Postgres MCP Servers

  • Query MCP. An MCP server for Supabase Postgres with a three-tier safety architecture and Supabase management API support.

  • PG-MCP. An MCP server for PostgreSQL with flexible connection options, explain plans, extension context, and more.

  • Reference PostgreSQL MCP Server. A simple MCP Server implementation exposing schema information as MCP resources and executing read-only queries.

  • Supabase Postgres MCP Server. This MCP Server provides Supabase management features and is actively maintained by the Supabase community.

  • Nile MCP Server. An MCP server providing access to the management API for the Nile's multi-tenant Postgres service.

  • Neon MCP Server. An MCP server providing access to the management API for Neon's serverless Postgres service.

  • Wren MCP Server. Provides a semantic engine powering business intelligence for Postgres and other databases.

DBA Tools (including commercial offerings)

  • Aiven Database Optimizer. A tool that provides holistic database workload analysis, query optimizations, and other performance improvements.

  • dba.ai. An AI-powered database administration assistant that integrates with GitHub to resolve code issues.

  • pgAnalyze. A comprehensive monitoring and analytics platform for identifying performance bottlenecks, optimizing queries, and real-time alerting.

  • Postgres.ai. An interactive chat experience combining an extensive Postgres knowledge base and GPT-4.

  • Xata Agent. An open-source AI agent that automatically monitors database health, diagnoses issues, and provides recommendations using LLM-powered reasoning and playbooks.

Postgres Utilities

  • Dexter. A tool for generating and testing hypothetical indexes on PostgreSQL.

  • PgHero. A performance dashboard for Postgres, with recommendations. Postgres MCP Pro incorporates health checks from PgHero.

  • PgTune. Heuristics for tuning Postgres configuration.

Frequently Asked Questions

How is Postgres MCP Pro different from other Postgres MCP servers? There are many MCP servers allow an AI agent to run queries against a Postgres database. Postgres MCP Pro does that too, but also adds tools for understanding and improving the performance of your Postgres database. For example, it implements a version of the Anytime Algorithm of Database Tuning Advisor for Microsoft SQL Server, a modern industrial-strength algorithm for automatic index tuning.

Postgres MCP Pro

Other Postgres MCP Servers

✅ Deterministic database health checks

❌ Unrepeatable LLM-generated health queries

✅ Principled indexing search strategies

❌ Gen-AI guesses at indexing improvements

✅ Workload analysis to find top problems

❌ Inconsistent problem analysis

✅ Simulates performance improvements

❌ Try it yourself and see if it works

Postgres MCP Pro complements generative AI by adding deterministic tools and classical optimization algorithms The combination is both reliable and flexible.

Why are MCP tools needed when the LLM can reason, generate SQL, etc? LLMs are invaluable for tasks that involve ambiguity, reasoning, or natural language. When compared to procedural code, however, they can be slow, expensive, non-deterministic, and sometimes produce unreliable results. In the case of database tuning, we have well established algorithms, developed over decades, that are proven to work. Postgres MCP Pro lets you combine the best of both worlds by pairing LLMs with classical optimization algorithms and other procedural tools.

How do you test Postgres MCP Pro? Testing is critical to ensuring that Postgres MCP Pro is reliable and accurate. We are building out a suite of AI-generated adversarial workloads designed to challenge Postgres MCP Pro and ensure it performs under a broad variety of scenarios.

What Postgres versions are supported? Our testing presently focuses on Postgres 15, 16, and 17. We plan to support Postgres versions 13 through 17.

Who created this project? This project is created and maintained by Crystal DBA.

Roadmap

TBD

You and your needs are a critical driver for what we build. Tell us what you want to see by opening an issue or a pull request. You can also contact us on Discord.

Technical Notes

This section includes a high-level overview technical considerations that influenced the design of Postgres MCP Pro.

Index Tuning

Developers know that missing indexes are one of the most common causes of database performance issues. Indexes provide access methods that allow Postgres to quickly locate data that is required to execute a query. When tables are small, indexes make little difference, but as the size of the data grows, the difference in algorithmic complexity between a table scan and an index lookup becomes significant (typically O(n) vs O(log n), potentially more if joins on multiple tables are involved).

Generating suggested indexes in Postgres MCP Pro proceeds in several stages:

  1. Identify SQL queries in need of tuning. If you know you are having a problem with a specific SQL query you can provide it. Postgres MCP Pro can also analyze the workload to identify index tuning targets. To do this, it relies on the pg_stat_statements extension, which records the runtime and resource consumption of each query.

    A query is a candidate for index tuning if it is a top resource consumer, either on a per-execution basis or in aggregate. At present, we use execution time as a proxy for cumulative resource consumption, but it may also make sense to look at specifics resources, e.g., the number of blocks accessed or the number of blocks read from disk. The analyze_query_workload tool focuses on slow queries, using the mean time per execution with thresholds for execution count and mean execution time. Agents may also call get_top_queries, which accepts a parameter for mean vs. total execution time, then pass these queries analyze_query_indexes to get index recommendations.

    Sophisticated index tuning systems use "workload compression" to produce a representative subset of queries that reflects the characteristics of the workload as a whole, reducing the problem for downstream algorithms. Postgres MCP Pro performs a limited form of workload compression by normalizing queries so that those generated from the same template appear as one. It weights each query equally, a simplification that works when the benefits to indexing are large.

  2. Generate candidate indexes Once we have a list of SQL queries that we want to improve through indexing, we generate a list of indexes that we might want to add. To do this, we parse the SQL and identify any columns used in filters, joins, grouping, or sorting.

    To generate all possible indexes we need to consider combinations of these columns, because Postgres supports multicolumn indexes. In the present implementation, we include only one permutation of each possible multicolumn index, which is selected at random. We make this simplification to reduce the search space because permutations often have equivalent performance. However, we hope to improve in this area.

  3. Search for the optimal index configuration. Our objective is to find the combination of indexes that optimally balances the performance benefits against the costs of storing and maintaining those indexes. We estimate the performance improvement by using the "what if?" capabilities provided by the hypopg extension. This simulates how the Postgres query optimizer will execute a query after the addition of indexes, and reports changes based on the actual Postgres cost model.

    One challenge is that generating query plans generally requires knowledge of the specific parameter values used in the query. Query normalization, which is necessary to reduce the queries under consideration, removes parameter constants. Parameter values provided via bind variables are similarly not available to us.

    To address this problem, we produce realistic constants that we can provide as parameters by sampling from the table statistics. In version 16, Postgres added generic explain plan functionality, but it has limitations, for example around LIKE clauses, which our implementation does not have.

    Search strategy is critical because evaluating all possible index combinations feasible only in simple situations. This is what most sets apart various indexing approaches. Adapting the approach of Microsoft's Anytime algorithm, we employ a greedy search strategy, i.e., find the best one-index solution, then find the best index to add to that to produce a two-index solution. Our search terminates when the time budget is exhausted or when a round of exploration fails to produce any gains above the minimum improvement threshold of 10%.

  4. Cost-benefit analysis. When posed with two indexing alternatives, one which produces better performance and one which requires more space, how do we decide which to choose? Traditionally, index advisors ask for a storage budget and optimize performance with respect to that storage budget. We also take a storage budget, but perform a cost-benefit analysis throughout the optimization.

    We frame this as the problem of selecting a point along the Pareto front—the set of choices for which improving one quality metric necessarily worsens another. In an ideal world, we might want to assess the cost of the storage and the benefit of improved performance in monetary terms. However, there is a simpler and more practical approach: to look at the changes in relative terms. Most people would agree that a 100x performance improvement is worth it, even if the storage cost is 2x. In our implementation, we use a configurable parameter to set this threshold. By default, we require the change in the log (base 10) of the performance improvement to be 2x the difference in the log of the space cost. This works out to allowing a maximum 10x increase in space for a 100x performance improvement.

Our implementation is most closely related to the Anytime Algorithm found in Microsoft SQL Server. Compared to Dexter, an automatic indexing tool for Postgres, we search a larger space and use different heuristics. This allows us to generate better solutions at the cost of longer runtime.

We also show the work done in each round of the search, including a comparison of the query plans before and after the addition of each index. This give the LLM additional context that it can use when responding to the indexing recommendations.

Experimental: Index Tuning by LLM

Postgres MCP Pro includes an experimental index tuning feature based on Optimization by LLM. Instead of using heuristics to explore possible index configurations, we provide the database schema and query plans to an LLM and ask it to propose index configurations. We then use hypopg to predict performance with the proposed indexes, then feed those results back into the LLM to produce a new set of suggestions. We repeat this process until multiple rounds of iteration produce no further improvements.

Index optimization by LLM is has advantages when the index search space is large, or when indexes with many columns need to be considered. Like traditional search-based approaches, it relies on the accuracy of the hypopg performance predictions.

In order to perform index optimization by LLM, you must provide an OpenAI API key by setting the OPENAI_API_KEY environment variable.

Database Health

Database health checks identify tuning opportunities and maintenance needs before they lead to critical issues. In the present release, Postgres MCP Pro adapts the database health checks directly from PgHero. We are working to fully validate these checks and may extend them in the future.

  • Index Health. Looks for unused indexes, duplicate indexes, and indexes that are bloated. Bloated indexes make inefficient use of database pages. Postgres autovacuum cleans up index entries pointing to dead tuples, and marks the entries as reusable. However, it does not compact the index pages and, eventually, index pages may contain few live tuple references.

  • Buffer Cache Hit Rate. Measures the proportion of database reads that are served from the buffer cache instead of disk. A low buffer cache hit rate must be investigated as it is often not cost-optimal and leads to degraded application performance.

  • Connection Health. Checks the number of connections to the database and reports on their utilization. The biggest risk is running out of connections, but a high number of idle or blocked connections can also indicate issues.

  • Vacuum Health. Vacuum is important for many reasons. A critical one is preventing transaction id wraparound, which can cause the database to stop accepting writes. The Postgres multi-version concurrency control (MVCC) mechanism requires a unique transaction id for each transaction. However, because Postgres uses a 32-bit signed integer for transaction ids, it needs to reuse transaction ids after after a maximum of 2 billion transactions. To do this it "freezes" the transaction ids of historical transactions, setting them all to a special value that indicates distant past. When records first go to disk, they are written visibility for a range of transaction ids. Before re-using these transaction ids, Postgres must update any on-disk records, "freezing" them to remove the references to the transaction ids to be reused. This check looks for tables that require vacuuming to prevent transaction id wraparound.

  • Replication Health. Checks replication health by monitoring lag between primary and replicas, verifying replication status, and tracking usage of replication slots.

  • Constraint Health. During normal operation, Postgres rejects any transactions that would cause a constraint violation. However, invalid constraints may occur after loading data or in recovery scenarios. This check looks for any invalid constraints.

  • Sequence Health. Looks for sequences that are at risk of exceeding their maximum value.

Postgres Client Library

Postgres MCP Pro uses psycopg3 to connect to Postgres using asynchronous I/O. Under the hood, psycopg3 uses the libpq library to connect to Postgres, providing access to the full Postgres feature set and an underlying implementation fully supported by the Postgres community.

Some other Python-based MCP servers use asyncpg, which may simplify installation by eliminating the libpq dependency. Asyncpg is also probably faster than psycopg3, but we have not validated this ourselves. Older benchmarks report a larger performance gap, suggesting that the newer psycopg3 has closed the gap as it matures.

Balancing these considerations, we selected psycopg3 over asyncpg. We remain open to revising this decision in the future.

Connection Configuration

Like the Reference PostgreSQL MCP Server, Postgres MCP Pro takes Postgres connection information at startup. This is convenient for users who always connect to the same database but can be cumbersome when users switch databases.

An alternative approach, taken by PG-MCP, is provide connection details via MCP tool calls at the time of use. This is more convenient for users who switch databases, and allows a single MCP server to simultaneously support multiple end-users.

There must be a better approach than either of these. Both have security weaknesses—few MCP clients store the MCP server configuration securely (an exception is Goose), and credentials provided via MCP tools are passed through the LLM and stored in the chat history. Both also have usability issues in some scenarios.

Schema Information

The purpose of the schema information tool is to provide the calling AI agent with the information it needs to generate correct and performant SQL. For example, suppose a user asks, "How many flights took off from San Francisco and landed in Paris during the past year?" The AI agent needs to find the table that stores the flights, the columns that store the origin and destinations, and perhaps a table that maps between airport codes and airport locations.

Why provide schema information tools when LLMs are generally capable of generating the SQL to retrieve this information from Postgres directly?

Our experience using Claude indicates that the calling LLM is very good at generating SQL to explore the Postgres schema by querying the Postgres system catalog and the information schema (an ANSI-standardized database metadata view). However, we do not know whether other LLMs do so as reliably and capably.

Would it be better to provide schema information using MCP resources rather than MCP tools?

The Reference PostgreSQL MCP Server uses resources to expose schema information rather than tools. Navigating resources is similar to navigating a file system, so this approach is natural in many ways. However, resource support is less widespread than tool support in the MCP client ecosystem (see example clients). In addition, while the MCP standard says that resources can be accessed by either AI agents or end-user humans, some clients only support human navigation of the resource tree.

Protected SQL Execution

AI amplifies longstanding challenges of protecting databases from a range of threats, ranging from simple mistakes to sophisticated attacks by malicious actors. Whether the threat is accidental or malicious, a similar security framework applies, with aims that fall into three categories: confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The familiar tension between convenience and safety is also evident and pronounced.

Postgres MCP Pro's protected SQL execution mode focuses on integrity. In the context of MCP, we are most concerned with LLM-generated SQL causing damage—for example, unintended data modification or deletion, or other changes that might circumvent an organization's change management process.

The simplest way to provide integrity is to ensure that all SQL executed against the database is read-only. One way to do this is by creating a database user with read-only access permissions. While this is a good approach, many find this cumbersome in practice. Postgres does not provide a way to place a connection or session into read-only mode, so Postgres MCP Pro uses a more complex approach to ensure read-only SQL execution on top of a read-write connection.

Postgres MCP Provides a read-only transaction mode that prevents data and schema modifications. Like the Reference PostgreSQL MCP Server, we use read-only transactions to provide protected SQL execution.

To make this mechanism robust, we need to ensure that the SQL does not somehow circumvent the read-only transaction mode, say by issuing a COMMIT or ROLLBACK statement and then beginning a new transaction.

For example, the LLM can circumvent the read-only transaction mode by issuing a ROLLBACK statement and then beginning a new transaction. For example:

ROLLBACK; DROP TABLE users;

To prevent cases like this, we parse the SQL before execution using the pglast library. We reject any SQL that contains commit or rollback statements. Helpfully, the popular Postgres stored procedure languages, including PL/pgSQL and PL/Python, do not allow for COMMIT or ROLLBACK statements. If you have unsafe stored procedure languages enabled on your database, then our read-only protections could be circumvented.

At present, Postgres MCP Pro provides two levels of protection for the database, one at either extreme of the convenience/safety spectrum.

  • "Unrestricted" provides maximum flexibility. It is suitable for development environments where speed and flexibility are paramount, and where there is no need to protect valuable or sensitive data.

  • "Restricted" provides a balance between flexibility and safety. It is suitable for production environments where the database is exposed to untrusted users, and where it is important to protect valuable or sensitive data.

Unrestricted mode aligns with the approach of Cursor's auto-run mode, where the AI agent operates with limited human oversight or approvals. We expect auto-run to be deployed in development environments where the consequences of mistakes are low, where databases do not contain valuable or sensitive data, and where they can be recreated or restored from backups when needed.

We designed restricted mode to be conservative, erring on the side of safety even though it may be inconvenient. Restricted mode is limited to read-only operations, and we limit query execution time to prevent long-running queries from impacting system performance. We may add measures in the future to make sure that restricted mode is safe to use with production databases.

Postgres MCP Pro Development

The instructions below are for developers who want to work on Postgres MCP Pro, or users who prefer to install Postgres MCP Pro from source.

Local Development Setup

  1. Install uv:

    curl -sSL https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh
  2. Clone the repository:

    git clone https://github.com/crystaldba/postgres-mcp.git
    cd postgres-mcp
  3. Install dependencies:

    uv pip install -e .
    uv sync
  4. Run the server:

    uv run postgres-mcp "postgres://user:password@localhost:5432/dbname"

Available Tools

9 tools
analyze_db_healthA
Read-only

Analyzes database health. Here are the available health checks:

  • index - checks for invalid, duplicate, and bloated indexes

  • connection - checks the number of connection and their utilization

  • vacuum - checks vacuum health for transaction id wraparound

  • sequence - checks sequences at risk of exceeding their maximum value

  • replication - checks replication health including lag and slots

  • buffer - checks for buffer cache hit rates for indexes and tables

  • constraint - checks for invalid constraints

  • all - runs all checks You can optionally specify a single health check or a comma-separated list of health checks. The default is 'all' checks.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
health_typeNoOptional. Valid values are: all, buffer, connection, constraint, index, replication, sequence, vacuum.all

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral detail by listing each health check's purpose (e.g., 'checks for invalid, duplicate, and bloated indexes'), which is consistent with read-only analysis.

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?

Description is well-structured with a short opening sentence followed by bullet points listing checks. No wasted words, front-loaded with main purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single optional parameter and existing output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, how to specify checks, and what each check covers.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described). Description adds minor nuance (comma-separated allowed) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Analyzes database health' and lists specific health checks (index, connection, vacuum, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_query_indexes which focus on specific aspects.

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?

Provides clear guidance on how to use the tool: specify a single check or comma-separated list, default 'all'. However, does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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

analyze_query_indexesA
Read-only

Analyze a list of (up to 10) SQL queries and recommend optimal indexes

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodNoMethod to use for analysisdta
queriesYesList of Query strings to analyze
max_index_size_mbNoMax index size in MB

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the limit of 10 queries and that it recommends indexes, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and constraints. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the purpose, input limit, and expected output (index recommendations). For a read-only analysis tool, this is fully sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (queries, method, max_index_size_mb). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the queries parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Analyze', the resource 'a list of SQL queries', and the output 'recommend optimal indexes'. It also includes a specific constraint (up to 10 queries), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_workload_indexes.

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 description implies usage for analyzing a small batch of queries to get index recommendations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_workload_indexes or execute_sql. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

analyze_workload_indexesA
Read-only

Analyze frequently executed queries in the database and recommend optimal indexes

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodNoMethod to use for analysisdta
max_index_size_mbNoMax index size in MB

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond analyzing queries and recommending indexes. No mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

A single sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and only 2 parameters, the description minimally covers the core functionality. Missing details like whether recommendations are returned as a list or if any prerequisites exist. Could be more informative.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'method' and 'max_index_size_mb'.

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 states it analyzes frequently executed queries and recommends indexes. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tool 'analyze_query_indexes', which may have a similar purpose.

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 description implies use for workload index analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like 'analyze_query_indexes' or 'explain_query'. No exclusions or context are given.

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

execute_sqlC
Destructive

Execute any SQL query

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sqlNoSQL to runall

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

While the destructiveHint annotation indicates potential for data modification, the description does not elaborate. It fails to mention that execution may alter data, require authentication, or have side effects like creating temporary tables. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 very short (5 words) and front-loaded, which aids quick scanning. However, it sacrifices essential details for brevity. A slightly longer description with context would be more useful while still being concise.

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 tool's destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description should cover safe usage, default behavior (the default 'all' is unclear), and whether it supports SELECT-only or DDL/DML. The current description leaves significant gaps, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 already includes a description for the 'sql' parameter. The tool description repeats the purpose without adding new parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value is provided.

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 'Execute any SQL query' clearly states the tool's action (execute) and resource (SQL query). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_db_health or explain_query, which focus on analysis rather than execution. However, it could be more precise about the scope of supported SQL (e.g., DDL vs DML).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention scenarios to avoid (e.g., for resource-intensive queries) or prerequisites (e.g., user permissions). A brief note on appropriate contexts would improve this.

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

explain_queryA
Read-only

Explains the execution plan for a SQL query, showing how the database will execute it and provides detailed cost estimates.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sqlYesSQL query to explain
analyzeNoWhen True, actually runs the query to show real execution statistics instead of estimates. Takes longer but provides more accurate information.
hypothetical_indexesNoA list of hypothetical indexes to simulate. Each index must be a dictionary with these keys: - 'table': The table name to add the index to (e.g., 'users') - 'columns': List of column names to include in the index (e.g., ['email'] or ['last_name', 'first_name']) - 'using': Optional index method (default: 'btree', other options include 'hash', 'gist', etc.) Examples: [ {"table": "users", "columns": ["email"], "using": "btree"}, {"table": "orders", "columns": ["user_id", "created_at"]} ] If there is no hypothetical index, you can pass an empty list.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds that the tool shows how the database will execute and provides cost estimates, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as the impact of the 'analyze' parameter or potential 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 description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose, it does not mention optional parameters (analyze, hypothetical_indexes) or their effects. Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the description could be more complete for a tool with three parameters and advanced features.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: explaining a SQL query's execution plan with cost estimates. It uses a specific verb ('explains') and resource ('execution plan'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_sql or analyze_query_indexes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use explain_query vs. analyze_query_indexes). The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where it's appropriate.

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

get_object_detailsB
Read-only

Show detailed information about a database object

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
object_nameYesObject name
object_typeNoObject type: 'table', 'view', 'sequence', or 'extension'table
schema_nameYesSchema name

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Show detailed information' aligns with a read operation. No contradictions. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, but it is consistent.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and could be more informative without being verbose. It is not front-loaded with critical details.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not specify what kind of details are provided, leaving some ambiguity. Adequate for a simple detail retrieval tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond their schema definitions.

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 states it shows detailed information about a database object, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_objects (which lists objects) and list_schemas (lists schemas). However, it does not specify what 'detailed information' includes, but it is specific enough.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives or contexts where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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

get_top_queriesB
Read-only

Reports the slowest or most resource-intensive queries using data from the 'pg_stat_statements' extension.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of queries to return when ranking based on mean_time or total_time
sort_byNoRanking criteria: 'total_time' for total execution time or 'mean_time' for mean execution time per call, or 'resources' for resource-intensive queriesresources

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds context by specifying the data source (pg_stat_statements) which implies the extension must be enabled, but does not detail potential impacts like query reset or permission requirements.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Clear and to the point. Could be slightly improved by adding a brief note about extension requirement, but remains appropriately sized.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and optional parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention prerequisites (pg_stat_statements must be enabled) or any limitations, which would be helpful for an agent deciding whether to use this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The overall description reinforces the sort_by options by mentioning 'slowest or most resource-intensive', but adds no new insight beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'reports' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the slowest or most resource-intensive queries' from 'pg_stat_statements'. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_query_indexes or explain_query by focusing on top queries by performance metrics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_db_health or execute_sql. The description implies it's for identifying problematic queries but does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct to other tools.

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

list_objectsA
Read-only

List objects in a schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
object_typeNoObject type: 'table', 'view', 'sequence', or 'extension'table
schema_nameYesSchema name

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (true) and does not contradict it. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation. Since annotations carry the behavioral burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence that is efficiently front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose.

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 and the presence of a detailed input schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the basic purpose. It could optionally mention the object types listed, but the schema provides that detail. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters. Per criteria, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'List objects in a schema' clearly states the action (list) and resource (objects in a schema). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_schemas' which lists schemas, and 'get_object_details' which details a single object. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual guidance.

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

list_schemasA
Read-only

List all schemas in the database

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true'. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but does not exceed expectations.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant information. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Complete given zero parameters, presence of output schema, and annotation. No additional information is necessary for a simple listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 'List all schemas in the database' clearly states the action (list) and resource (schemas), and it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'list_objects' or 'execute_sql'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'list_objects' instead). Agent must infer purpose from name alone.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 9 tool updatesv0.1.1
    • Addedanalyze_db_health
    • Addedanalyze_query_indexes
    • Addedanalyze_workload_indexes
    • Addedexecute_sql
    • Addedexplain_query
    • Addedget_object_details
    • Addedget_top_queries
    • Addedlist_objects
    • Addedlist_schemas
  2. 9 tool updatesv0.3.0
    • Removedanalyze_db_health
    • Removedanalyze_query_indexes
    • Removedanalyze_workload_indexes
    • Removedexecute_sql
    • Removedexplain_query
    • Removedget_object_details
    • Removedget_top_queries
    • Removedlist_objects
    • Removedlist_schemas
  3. 9 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedanalyze_db_health
    • First observedanalyze_query_indexes
    • First observedanalyze_workload_indexes
    • First observedexecute_sql
    • First observedexplain_query
    • First observedget_object_details
    • First observedget_top_queries
    • First observedlist_objects
    • First observedlist_schemas

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of database interaction: health checks, index analysis, query execution, explain plans, object details, top queries, and listing schemas/objects. There is no overlap; the two index analysis tools are differentiated by input (specific queries vs. workload).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (analyze_, execute_, explain_, get_, list_). Verbs like 'analyze', 'execute', 'explain', 'get', and 'list' are used uniformly, making the naming predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Postgres MCP server covering health analysis, index optimization, query execution, and schema exploration. It neither feels sparse nor overwhelming, earning its place.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers analysis and ad-hoc queries comprehensively via execute_sql, but lacks explicit tools for creating, altering, or dropping database objects. However, execute_sql enables these operations indirectly, making the gap minor.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that enables powerful PostgreSQL database management capabilities including analysis, schema management, data migration, and monitoring through natural language interactions.
    18
    1,692
    198
    AGPL 3.0
  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An open source Model Context Protocol server for PostgreSQL that provides database health analysis, index tuning, query plan exploration, and safe SQL execution for AI agents throughout the development process.
    9
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    Not graded
    maintenance
    An open-source MCP server that provides AI agents with advanced PostgreSQL capabilities including index tuning, query plan optimization, and comprehensive database health analysis. It supports safe SQL execution through configurable access modes and offers both stdio and SSE transport options for various development environments.
    -
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server that allows AI models to securely interact with data hosted in Azure Database for PostgreSQL. It enables natural language querying, schema exploration, and data management through MCP clients like Claude Desktop and Visual Studio Code.
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/crystaldba/postgres-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server