Postgres MCP Pro
Provides tools for analyzing database health, index tuning, query planning, schema intelligence, and safe SQL execution on PostgreSQL databases.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Postgres MCP ProCheck the health of my database and suggest indexes."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
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 processβfrom 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:
π Database Health - analyze index health, connection utilization, buffer cache, vacuum health, sequence limits, replication lag, and more.
β‘ Index Tuning - explore thousands of possible indexes to find the best solution for your workload, using industrial-strength algorithms.
π Query Plans - validate and optimize performance by reviewing EXPLAIN plans and simulating the impact of hypothetical indexes.
π§ Schema Intelligence - context-aware SQL generation based on detailed understanding of the database schema.
π‘οΈ 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:
π Fixed performance - including ORM queries, indexing, and caching
π οΈ Fixed a broken page - by prompting the agent to explore the data, fix queries, and add related content.
π§ 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:
Access credentials for your database.
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-mcpOption 2: Using Python
If you have pipx installed you can install Postgres MCP Pro with:
pipx install postgres-mcpOtherwise, install Postgres MCP Pro with uv:
uv pip install postgres-mcpIf 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.jsonWindows:
%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.internalautomaticallyLinux: Uses
172.17.0.1or the appropriate host address automatically
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 PalettetoCursor Settings, then open theMCPtab to access the configuration file.If you are using Windsurf, you can navigate to from the
Command PalettetoOpen Windsurf Settings Pageto access the configuration file.If you are using Goose run
goose configure, then selectAdd Extension.
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=sseThen 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_statements and hypopg extensions on your database.
The
pg_statementsextension 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
hypopgextension 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_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_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_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 |
| Lists all database schemas available in the PostgreSQL instance. |
| Lists database objects (tables, views, sequences, extensions) within a specified schema. |
| Provides information about a specific database object, for example, a table's columns, constraints, and indexes. |
| Executes SQL statements on the database, with read-only limitations when connected in restricted mode. |
| 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. |
| Reports the slowest SQL queries based on total execution time using |
| Analyzes the database workload to identify resource-intensive queries, then recommends optimal indexes for them. |
| Analyzes a list of specific SQL queries (up to 10) and recommends optimal indexes for them. |
| Performs comprehensive health checks including: buffer cache hit rates, connection health, constraint validation, index health (duplicate/unused/invalid), sequence limits, and vacuum health. |
Related Projects
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 |
β Deterministic database health checks | β Unrepeatable LLM-generated health queries |
β Principled indexing search strategies | β Gen-AI guesses at indexing improvements |
β Workload analysis to find top problems | β Inconsistent problem analysis |
β Simulates performance improvements | β 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:
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_statementsextension, 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_workloadtool focuses on slow queries, using the mean time per execution with thresholds for execution count and mean execution time. Agents may also callget_top_queries, which accepts a parameter for mean vs. total execution time, then pass these queriesanalyze_query_indexesto 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.
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.
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
hypopgextension. 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
LIKEclauses, 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%.
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 frontβthe 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 weaknessesβfew 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 damageβfor 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
Install uv:
curl -sSL https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | shClone the repository:
git clone https://github.com/crystaldba/postgres-mcp.git cd postgres-mcpInstall dependencies:
uv pip install -e . uv syncRun the server:
uv run postgres-mcp "postgres://user:password@localhost:5432/dbname"
Available Tools
9 toolsanalyze_db_healthA
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| health_type | No | Optional. Valid values are: all, buffer, connection, constraint, index, replication, sequence, vacuum. | all |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. It only describes the checks but lacks safety and behavioral context.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a bulleted list for clarity. While slightly verbose, it is well-structured and each sentence provides value.
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?
For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the available health checks. It could mention output format or prerequisites, but it's reasonably complete.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a description listing valid values. The tool description adds significant meaning by explaining each health check option (index, connection, etc.), which goes beyond the schema's minimal description.
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?
The description clearly states 'Analyzes database health' and lists specific health checks, making the tool's purpose very explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_query_indexes by focusing on overall database health rather than specific query or index analysis.
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?
The description provides clear guidance on how to use the optional health_type parameter, including default behavior and valid values. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools or specify when to use it over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
analyze_query_indexesA
Analyze a list of (up to 10) SQL queries and recommend optimal indexes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | Method to use for analysis | dta |
| queries | Yes | List of Query strings to analyze | |
| max_index_size_mb | No | Max index size in MB |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose if the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid input, authentication needs, or output format. The only behavioral hint is the 10-query limit, leaving significant gaps.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and the 10-query limit. However, it does not explain what 'recommend optimal indexes' means in practice (e.g., output format, whether it returns DDL), which is a notable gap for a recommendation tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the 'up to 10' constraint for the queries parameter, which is not present in the schema's description. This enhances the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyze a list of SQL queries (up to 10) and recommend optimal indexes. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_workload_indexes, which likely targets entire workloads.
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?
The description implies usage via the 'up to 10' constraint, suggesting it's for ad-hoc analysis of a small query set, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_workload_indexes or explain_query. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
analyze_workload_indexesB
Analyze frequently executed queries in the database and recommend optimal indexes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | Method to use for analysis | dta |
| max_index_size_mb | No | Max index size in MB |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool 'recommends' indexes but does not clarify whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or if it modifies the database. The output format or side effects are not mentioned.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more structured by including the output or usage hints.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description does not explain what the recommendation looks like (e.g., list of indexes, DDL statements). The tool is moderately complex with sibling tools, but the description leaves gaps about the output and scope of analysis.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions (method enum and max index size). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'analyze' and 'recommend' along with the resource 'frequently executed queries' and 'optimal indexes'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'analyze_query_indexes' (which likely focuses on individual queries) and 'get_top_queries' (listing without recommendations).
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?
The description implies usage for workload-level index analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_query_indexes' or 'get_top_queries'. No when-not or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
execute_sqlC
Execute any SQL query
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | No | SQL to run | all |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description should clarify that executing arbitrary SQL can modify or delete data, pose security risks, or require elevated permissions. The vague 'Execute any SQL query' leaves the agent unaware of potential destructive 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful. The structure is acceptable but would benefit from a brief mention of scope or limitations.
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?
Given the tool's high potential for side effects (executing any SQL), the description is dangerously incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, isolation level, or whether modifications are committed. Without an output schema or annotations, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds no meaning beyond 'SQL to run.' The default value 'all' is unexplained and potentially misleading. The description should specify that the parameter expects a complete SQL statement, possibly including constraints like semicolons or transaction boundaries.
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?
The description 'Execute any SQL query' clearly states the action and resource, but is overly generic. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like explain_query or analyze_db_health, which also interact with SQL queries. A more specific purpose (e.g., 'Execute arbitrary SQL statements on the connected database') would improve clarity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not caution against using it for read-only analysis when explain_query might be safer. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions (e.g., 'Use only if you need to modify data; otherwise prefer read-only tools').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_queryB
Explains the execution plan for a SQL query, showing how the database will execute it and provides detailed cost estimates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | SQL query to explain | |
| analyze | No | When True, actually runs the query to show real execution statistics instead of estimates. Takes longer but provides more accurate information. | |
| hypothetical_indexes | No | A 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. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the 'analyze' parameter actually runs the query, which is a critical behavioral trait. The schema covers this but the description itself adds no transparency.
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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and one key output detail (cost estimates). No superfluous information.
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?
Lacks explicit output schema information; the description gives a general sense of output but could be more complete about the exact format. Given the sibling tools, more differentiation could improve completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool explains execution plans with cost estimates, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like execute_sql, though could be more explicit about when to use.
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 versus the alternatives such as execute_sql or analyze_query_indexes. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_object_detailsA
Show detailed information about a database object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | Object name | |
| object_type | No | Object type: 'table', 'view', 'sequence', or 'extension' | table |
| schema_name | Yes | Schema name |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose (e.g., read-only, required permissions, side effects). Minimal transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it could be more precise by specifying what 'detailed information' includes. Still, no wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema and no description of what 'detailed information' entails (columns, constraints, etc.), the description is incomplete for a details tool. Complexity is low, but more context is needed.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions that are minimal but sufficient. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'detailed information about a database object'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_objects (which likely lists objects) and analyze_* tools.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the tool's purpose is straightforward enough. A score of 4 reflects the lack of explicit guidelines despite the clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_top_queriesB
Reports the slowest or most resource-intensive queries using data from the 'pg_stat_statements' extension.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of queries to return when ranking based on mean_time or total_time | |
| sort_by | No | Ranking criteria: 'total_time' for total execution time or 'mean_time' for mean execution time per call, or 'resources' for resource-intensive queries | resources |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions reliance on the pg_stat_statements extension, which is a key dependency, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The term 'reports' implies read, but more detail would improve transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, wasting no words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of queries with metrics). It omits this, leaving the agent uncertain about output format. It also does not clarify what 'resource-intensive' means (e.g., which metrics). The description is insufficient for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself is clear, but the description misses the opportunity to explain how limit and sort_by interact or give examples.
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?
The description clearly states the tool reports slowest or most resource-intensive queries using pg_stat_statements, which distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_query_indexes or execute_sql. The verb 'reports' and resource 'queries' with specific scope make the purpose unambiguous.
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 versus siblings. The description implies usage for top queries but does not explicitly state when not to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., analyze_query_indexes for index analysis). The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_objectsC
List objects in a schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_type | No | Object type: 'table', 'view', 'sequence', or 'extension' | table |
| schema_name | Yes | Schema name |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List objects' without indicating read-only nature, idempotency, authentication needs, or any 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at five words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. While it lacks detail, it is not verbose and every word serves a purpose.
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?
The description is too minimal for this simple tool. It does not specify what 'objects' includes (tables, views, etc.) or what the output contains. Without an output schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to fully understand the tool's return value.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action 'list objects' and the scope 'in a schema'. It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_schemas' or 'get_object_details'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or provide context for selection among the listed sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_schemasA
List all schemas in the database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List all schemas' without mentioning read-only nature, permission requirements, or any side effects. While it implies a safe read, it lacks explicit transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could optionally mention the format or typical usage (e.g., 'Returns a list of schema names') to be fully self-contained.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all schemas in the database'). It is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_objects' or 'analyze_*' which target different resources or actions.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_objects' or 'get_object_details'). The description does not provide context, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.
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.
9 tool updates
v0.3.0- First observed
analyze_db_health - First observed
analyze_query_indexes - First observed
analyze_workload_indexes - First observed
execute_sql - First observed
explain_query - First observed
get_object_details - First observed
get_top_queries - First observed
list_objects - First observed
list_schemas
TDQS
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the two index analysis tools (analyze_query_indexes vs analyze_workload_indexes) could cause confusion as both recommend indexes, though descriptions clarify their different inputs. All other tools are clearly differentiated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., analyze_db_health, execute_sql, list_schemas). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for PostgreSQL management, covering health checks, index analysis, SQL execution, query explanation, and object listing. This is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The toolset covers core database diagnostics and performance tuning, but lacks tools for schema modification (e.g., create/drop index) or user management, which are reasonable omissions for a read-heavy diagnostic tool.
Maintenance
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
Hosted MCP server for PostgreSQL diagnostics: slow queries, missing indexes, connection pressure.
Comprehensive PostgreSQL documentation and best practices, including ecosystem tools
MCP server for querying and analyzing data from ad platforms, analytics tools, and spreadsheets
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn 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.9MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceAn 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.-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Postgres MCP server with index tuning, explain plans, health checks, and safe sql execution.10MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA Postgres MCP server with index tuning, explain plans, health checks, and safe SQL execution.9MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/it-romanov/noterp-postgres-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server