Un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) que proporciona funciones de gestión de bases de datos PostgreSQL. Este servidor ayuda a analizar las configuraciones existentes de PostgreSQL, proporciona orientación para la implementación y depura problemas de la base de datos.
analyze_database )Analiza la configuración de la base de datos PostgreSQL y las métricas de rendimiento:
Análisis de configuración
Métricas de rendimiento
Evaluación de seguridad
Recomendaciones para la optimización
// Example usage
{
"connectionString": "postgresql://user:password@localhost:5432/dbname",
"analysisType": "performance" // Optional: "configuration" | "performance" | "security"
}get_setup_instructions )Proporciona una guía paso a paso para la instalación y configuración de PostgreSQL:
Pasos de instalación específicos de la plataforma
Recomendaciones de configuración
Mejores prácticas de seguridad
Tareas posteriores a la instalación
// Example usage
{
"platform": "linux", // Required: "linux" | "macos" | "windows"
"version": "15", // Optional: PostgreSQL version
"useCase": "production" // Optional: "development" | "production"
}debug_database )Depurar problemas comunes de PostgreSQL:
Problemas de conexión
Cuellos de botella en el rendimiento
Conflictos de bloqueo
Estado de replicación
// Example usage
{
"connectionString": "postgresql://user:password@localhost:5432/dbname",
"issue": "performance", // Required: "connection" | "performance" | "locks" | "replication"
"logLevel": "debug" // Optional: "info" | "debug" | "trace"
}Related MCP server: Postgres MCP Pro
Node.js >= 18.0.0
Servidor PostgreSQL (para operaciones de base de datos de destino)
Acceso de red a instancias de PostgreSQL de destino
Para instalar PostgreSQL MCP Server para Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install @nahmanmate/postgresql-mcp-server --client claudeClonar el repositorio
Instalar dependencias:
npm installConstruir el servidor:
npm run buildAgregar al archivo de configuración de MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"postgresql-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/postgresql-mcp-server/build/index.js"],
"disabled": false,
"alwaysAllow": []
}
}
}npm run dev : inicia el servidor de desarrollo con recarga activa
npm run lint - Ejecutar ESLint
npm test - Ejecutar pruebas
Seguridad de la conexión
Utiliza agrupación de conexiones
Implementa tiempos de espera de conexión
Valida cadenas de conexión
Admite conexiones SSL/TLS
Seguridad de consultas
Valida consultas SQL
Previene operaciones peligrosas
Implementa tiempos de espera de consultas
Registra todas las operaciones
Autenticación
Admite múltiples métodos de autenticación
Implementa control de acceso basado en roles
Hace cumplir las políticas de contraseñas
Gestiona las credenciales de conexión de forma segura
Utilice siempre cadenas de conexión seguras con credenciales adecuadas
Siga las recomendaciones de seguridad de producción para entornos sensibles
Supervisar y analizar periódicamente el rendimiento de la base de datos
Mantenga la versión de PostgreSQL actualizada
Implementar estrategias de respaldo adecuadas
Utilice la agrupación de conexiones para una mejor gestión de recursos
Implementar un manejo y registro de errores adecuados
Auditorías y actualizaciones de seguridad periódicas
El servidor implementa un manejo integral de errores:
Fallos de conexión
Tiempos de espera de consulta
Errores de autenticación
Problemas de permisos
Limitaciones de recursos
El paquete evals carga un cliente mcp que ejecuta el archivo index.ts, por lo que no es necesario reconstruir entre pruebas. Puede consultar la documentación completa aquí .
OPENAI_API_KEY=your-key npx mcp-eval src/evals/evals.ts src/index.tsBifurcar el repositorio
Crear una rama de características
Confirme sus cambios
Empujar hacia la rama
Crear una solicitud de extracción
Este proyecto está licenciado bajo la licencia AGPLv3: consulte el archivo de LICENCIA para obtener más detalles.
Analyze PostgreSQL database configuration and performance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connectionString | Yes | PostgreSQL connection string | |
| analysisType | No | Type of analysis to perform |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does without detailing traits like whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of database analysis, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, what results to expect, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective tool use.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters ('connectionString' and 'analysisType') with descriptions and an enum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but unenhanced parameter information.
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 with a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('PostgreSQL database configuration and performance'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'debug_database' or 'get_setup_instructions', which prevents a perfect score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'debug_database' or 'get_setup_instructions'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid connection string, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Debug common PostgreSQL issues
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connectionString | Yes | PostgreSQL connection string | |
| issue | Yes | Type of issue to debug | |
| logLevel | No | Logging detail level | info |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Debug common PostgreSQL issues', lacking details on behavior such as what the tool does (e.g., runs diagnostics, generates reports, modifies settings), permissions required, side effects, or output format. It doesn't disclose if it's read-only, destructive, or has rate limits, which is a significant gap for a debugging tool.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose. It avoids redundancy and is structured to convey the core idea without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity of debugging (potentially involving diagnostics, analysis, or fixes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it handles different issue types, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps that could hinder correct agent invocation.
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 fully documents parameters like 'connectionString', 'issue' with enums, and 'logLevel'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 'Debug common PostgreSQL issues' states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what debugging entails (e.g., diagnostics, fixes, logs) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'analyze_database' or 'get_setup_instructions'. It's vague about the verb 'debug'—whether it analyzes, reports, or resolves issues.
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 like 'analyze_database' or 'get_setup_instructions'. The description implies usage for PostgreSQL issues but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get step-by-step PostgreSQL setup instructions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | PostgreSQL version to install | |
| platform | Yes | Operating system platform | |
| useCase | No | Intended use case |
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides 'step-by-step instructions,' implying a read-only, informational output, but doesn't clarify aspects like response format, potential side effects, or error handling, which are important for a tool with parameters.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get step-by-step PostgreSQL setup instructions') with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.
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 documents all parameters (version, platform, useCase) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying setup instructions, which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance it, 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 action ('Get step-by-step... instructions') and resource ('PostgreSQL setup'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_database' or 'debug_database', which likely serve different purposes but aren't contrasted here.
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. The description lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
analyze_databasedebug_databaseget_setup_instructionsEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyze_database focuses on configuration and performance analysis, debug_database targets issue troubleshooting, and get_setup_instructions provides installation guidance. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool without confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (analyze_database, debug_database, get_setup_instructions), using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations or mixed conventions.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a PostgreSQL domain, which typically involves operations like querying, inserting, updating, or managing tables. While the tools cover analysis, debugging, and setup, the lack of core database interaction tools suggests an incomplete surface for typical agent workflows.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a PostgreSQL server, as it lacks basic CRUD operations (e.g., execute_query, create_table, insert_data) and management functions (e.g., list_tables, backup_database). This will cause significant agent failures when attempting to interact with the database beyond setup and diagnostics.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Comprehensive PostgreSQL documentation and best practices, including ecosystem tools
Hosted MCP server for PostgreSQL diagnostics: slow queries, missing indexes, connection pressure.
Query PostgreSQL databases in plain English — LLM-generated, safety-validated SQL.
Manage Supabase projects end to end across database, auth, storage, realtime, and migrations. Moni…
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jamesjohnsdev/postgresql-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
