Supabase MCP Server

create_organization

Create a new organization in Supabase by providing a name and billing email to manage projects and access the Management API.

Instructions

Create a new organization

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "billing_email": "<billing_email>"
    },
    "name": "create_organization"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`billing_email`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.2Feb 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are needed, whether this is a high-impact operation, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. It provides only the basic action without 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool that creates a new organization (likely a significant administrative operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an organization represents in this system, what capabilities it enables, or what the tool returns upon success.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'name' and 'billing_email' represent, their formats, constraints, or significance. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('new organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' or explain what distinguishes an organization from a project in this context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 'create_project' or when not to use it. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or typical use cases for creating an organization versus other entities.

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

Deploy Server