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 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what details are returned, whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. A simple read operation needs more context about what details are returned, authentication requirements, and parameter semantics. The description doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without additional context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'specific organization' which implies the 'slug' parameter identifies which organization, but doesn't explain what a slug is, its format, or where to obtain it. With 1 parameter at 0% coverage, this minimal contextual hint is insufficient compensation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_organizations' by specifying retrieval of a single organization rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_project' which has a similar pattern but different resource.

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. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_organization' versus 'list_organizations', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing the organization slug. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context provided.

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