EN中
Explore / Postgres MCP
MCP ServerInstall-verifiedhigh risk

Postgres MCP

Let agents inspect and query PostgreSQL databases through a structured MCP interface.

RepositoryDocs
Preview · 94

Preview: the curated catalog plus the latest auto-checked entries. 47 newly auto-checked

63/100
Recommended
Confidence: medium
73/100
Benchmark
Confidence: medium
Needs human reviewInstall-verified · Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
Why
Recommendation 63/100, fits Data, setup is medium.
Best for
Developers using Self-hosted for data workflows.
Not for
Production write access without sandboxing or human approval.
Boundary
Checked up to "Install-verified"; deeper install and interface testing isn't covered yet — confirm in your own environment.
Remaining risk
High-risk permissions require explicit user approval and sandboxing.
Next step
Review tokens, write access, and network scope in a sandbox before team adoption.
Check before you adopt
This capability uses higher-risk permissions (tokens, write access, shell, and the like). Try it in an isolated environment and confirm what it actually does before using it for real work.

What it is good for

Let agents inspect and query PostgreSQL databases through a structured MCP interface. AgentMaps treats this as a mcp server candidate and scores it with a capped benchmark score plus a separate recommendation score that includes trust, platform fit, setup preference, and risk preference.

Use cases

  • - Query structured data
  • - Transform records
  • - Generate summaries
  • - Run repeatable task flows
  • - Coordinate tool calls

Best for

  • - Developers using Self-hosted for data workflows.
  • - Teams that want visible setup, verification, and risk evidence before adoption.

Not for

  • - Production write access without sandboxing or human approval.
  • - Users who cannot provide the required credentials.

Limitations

  • - Scenario-level L5-L7 benchmark testing is not part of the current MVP record.
How it runsTool/runtime connector

How to use it & what to watch

AI may help filter, explain, and draft a trial plan, but must not perform write, shell, external side effects, or production publishing before review.

What you'll see

  • Start from your task and the platform you use
  • Review its setup, source, and permission scope
  • Try it first in an isolated or low-permission environment
  • For high-risk actions, wait for a review before continuing

Where you can step in

  • Adjust task/platform filters
  • Add to compare
  • Open the source to check
  • Stop a high-risk adoption
  • Add what you've learned

Actions needing approval

  • Approval before writes or state mutation
  • External network target approval
  • Login-required path not fully tested

If something goes wrong

  • Auth path needs manual reproduction or a constrained test account.

How to judge a trial

  • Can you find a task-fit candidate within two minutes
  • Can it explain why it's recommended and where it doesn't fit
  • Can you see the token, write, shell, network, or local-file risks
  • Can you tell 'checked the docs' apart from 'actually verified in a run'
  • If a trial fails, is there a fallback or a way to take over manually

Verification evidence

Below is the result of each check — passed, partial, skipped, or not yet tested. It shows how far checking has gone, not that the capability is cleared for production use.

Info checked

Source, docs, license, or package metadata exists.

passed
Risk reviewed

Static review assigns permission and risk boundaries.

passed
Install-verified

Install path can be checked, but not necessarily in your environment.

passed
Interface-verified

Interface or entrypoint parsed; not a production safety approval.

skipped
  • Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
  • Source and documentation fields are present.
  • Static risk flags are assigned.
  • Install path is represented for harness checks.
  • Interface parsing pending.
  • Benchmark score capped at 80 by L3 verification.

Evaluation summary

Quick estimate
Needs reviewStatic reviewMisfire risk: Medium

Risk findings

  • - Database Access
  • - Sensitive Data
  • - Write Permission

Verified evidence

  • - Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
  • - Source and documentation fields are present.
  • - Static risk flags are assigned.
  • - Install path is represented for harness checks.

Score breakdown

Safety & permissions47
How well it works78
Actively maintained80
Setup & integration75
Interface quality83
Follows standards76
Task fit82
Works across platforms83

Why it scores well

  • - Clear task fit for the selected scenario.
  • - Static verification evidence is available.
  • - Portable across multiple AI clients.

Watch outs

  • - Requires credentials before full testing.
  • - High-risk permissions need sandboxing.

Alternatives

GitHub MCP Server
MCP Server · Coding, Automation
66/100
Rec

Connect agents to GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, and code search.

Interface-verifiedhigh riskSelf-hosted
View details →
Compare Postgres MCP vs GitHub MCP Server
Playwright MCP
MCP Server · Browser, Automation
84/100
Rec

Expose browser automation primitives through MCP for web navigation and testing.

Interface-verifiedmedium riskSelf-hosted
View details →
Compare Postgres MCP vs Playwright MCP
Supabase MCP
MCP Server · Data, Coding +1
62/100
Rec

Give agents controlled access to Supabase projects, schemas, SQL, and project metadata.

Install-verifiedhigh riskSelf-hosted
View details →
Compare Postgres MCP vs Supabase MCP