Supabase MCP Server

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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether this is an idempotent operation, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is optimal.

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?

For a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a Supabase project is, what parameters are needed, what happens after creation, or how this tool fits within the broader system of sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (4 required), the description provides absolutely no information about what any parameter means. It doesn't explain what 'name', 'organization_id', 'region', 'db_pass', or 'plan' represent, their formats, constraints, or relationships.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new Supabase project'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_organization' or explain what distinguishes a Supabase project from other entities in the system.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an organization first), when NOT to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_organization' or 'list_projects'.

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