Skip to main content
Glama

Supabase URL Shape

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

supabase-url-shape

Check a Supabase project URL shape. Secrets discarded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check
websiteNoPublic https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / website
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral burden: 'Secrets discarded' is a useful privacy guaranteeworld. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether network calls are made, what is returned, or what happens on invalid/unsupported inputs.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is only two sentences and mostly front-loaded, but for a tool exposing 10 optional, heterogeneous parameters, the brevity becomes under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any structure that maps input fields to the stated purpose.

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 10 optional params, no output schema, no annotations, and no instruction about which field to pass, an agent cannot confidently invoke this tool. The description is too sparse to compensate for the gap between the Supabase-specific name and the generic URL/JSON/weather/timezone/search parameters in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no param-level meaning; it never says which parameter should contain the Supabase project URL, leaving 'url' vs. 'ref' ambiguous despite the schema's otherwise clear field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Supabase project URL shape'), and the Supabase qualifier distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape and figma-url-shape. However, it does not clarify what the resulting 'shape' verdict is or explain how the many unrelated schema fields fit.

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 phrase 'Supabase project URL shape' implies when to use the tool, and the name itself signals its domain among sibling shape tools. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as domain-shape, normalize-url, or jira-key-shape.

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

All Supabase URL Shape toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources