Supabase MCP Lite

# Context Reduction Strategies Comparison ## Overview Two different approaches to reducing MCP context usage for Supabase integration. ## 1. supabase-mcp-lite (Extreme Minimalism) ### Strategy - **Philosophy**: "Less is more" - only essential operations - **Implementation**: 4 fixed tools with minimal descriptions - **Context Size**: ~265 lines total ### Key Features ```typescript // Ultra-minimal tool registration server.registerTool("select", { title: "Get data", // 8 characters description: "Select data from a table", // 24 characters inputSchema: { projectUrl: z.string().describe("Supabase project URL"), table: z.string().describe("Table name"), where: z.record(z.any()).optional().describe("Filter conditions"), limit: z.number().optional().describe("Maximum rows to return") } }) ``` ### Advantages - **70% context reduction** compared to standard implementations - **Zero discovery overhead** - all tools immediately available - **Simple mental model** - 4 tools cover 90% of use cases - **No initialization steps** - instant usage ### Limitations - No advanced features (RLS, realtime, functions, triggers) - Limited query capabilities - No schema inspection tools ### Best For - Simple CRUD operations - Rapid prototyping - Context-constrained environments - Users who know exactly what they need ## 2. quegenx-mcp optimized-tools (Lazy Loading) ### Strategy - **Philosophy**: "Load what you need" - progressive enhancement - **Implementation**: Category-based lazy loading system - **Context Size**: ~350 lines initial, scales up to full feature set ### Key Features ```typescript // Category discovery and loading const toolCategories = { TABLE: 'table', STORAGE: 'storage', INDEX: 'index', CONSTRAINT: 'constraint', FUNCTION: 'function', TRIGGER: 'trigger', POLICY: 'policy', ROLE: 'role', ENUM: 'enum', PUBLICATION: 'publication', USER: 'user', REALTIME: 'realtime', QUERY: 'query', ADVISOR: 'advisor' }; // Dynamic tool loading server.tool("load_category_tools", async ({ category }) => { // Load only requested category tools const tools = categoryToolMap[category]; tools.forEach(tool => server.tool(tool.name, ...)); }) ``` ### Advantages - **Full feature access** without initial context penalty - **Organized tool discovery** through categories - **Scalable architecture** - add categories without affecting initial load - **Smart response optimization** - automatic result truncation ### Limitations - Additional step required (category loading) - More complex implementation - Slightly higher initial context than ultra-minimal approach ### Best For - Complex database operations - Teams needing full Postgres features - Long-running sessions where different features are needed over time - Users who want to explore available capabilities ## Context Usage Comparison | Metric | supabase-mcp-lite | quegenx optimized | Standard MCP | |--------|-------------------|-------------------|--------------| | Initial Load | 265 lines | 350 lines | 2000+ lines | | Tool Count (Initial) | 4 | 5 | 50+ | | Tool Count (Max) | 4 | 50+ | 50+ | | Description Length | 8-15 chars | 30-50 chars | 100+ chars | | Schema Complexity | Flat | Flat | Nested | | Response Limit | 100 rows | Dynamic | Unlimited | ## Optimization Techniques Used ### Both Approaches - **Automatic result truncation** (100-row limit) - **Minimal parameter descriptions** - **No verbose error messages** - **Simplified response formatting** ### supabase-mcp-lite Specific - **Ultra-short tool names** (select, mutate, storage, auth) - **Single-word descriptions** where possible - **Combined operations** (insert/update/delete in one tool) - **No metadata or statistics** ### quegenx-mcp Specific - **Lazy loading pattern** for tool registration - **Category-based organization** - **Dynamic response optimization** based on data size - **Essential tools pre-loaded** (query, list-tables) ## Performance Impact ### Token Usage (estimated per operation) | Operation | supabase-mcp-lite | quegenx (unloaded) | quegenx (loaded) | Standard | |-----------|-------------------|--------------------|--------------------|----------| | List tables | ~300 tokens | ~400 tokens | ~400 tokens | ~2200 tokens | | Insert row | ~250 tokens | N/A (load first) | ~500 tokens | ~2500 tokens | | Complex query | N/A | ~450 tokens | ~450 tokens | ~2800 tokens | ## Recommendations ### Choose supabase-mcp-lite when: - Working with simple CRUD operations - Context window is severely limited - Speed of interaction is critical - Working with well-known schemas ### Choose quegenx optimized-tools when: - Need full Postgres/Supabase features - Working on complex database operations - Session involves multiple different operations - Want to explore available capabilities ## Hybrid Approach Possibility A potential hybrid could combine both strategies: 1. Start with 4-5 essential tools (like supabase-mcp-lite) 2. Add category loading for advanced features (like quegenx) 3. Use ultra-minimal descriptions for basic tools 4. Provide richer descriptions only for complex tools This would give: - ~200 lines initial context - Immediate access to common operations - Optional access to full feature set - Best of both worlds ## Conclusion Both approaches successfully reduce context usage by 70-90% compared to standard implementations: - **supabase-mcp-lite**: Extreme minimalism for maximum efficiency - **quegenx optimized-tools**: Smart lazy loading for full capabilities The choice depends on your specific use case and whether you prioritize absolute minimal context (lite) or feature completeness with smart loading (quegenx).