Supabase MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which is clear, but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if the project doesn't exist), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of returned details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral details like error handling, or what the return value includes. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention the 'ref' parameter at all, failing to explain what it represents (e.g., a project ID or reference) or how to obtain it. This leaves the parameter undocumented, which is inadequate given the low schema coverage.

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 Supabase project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_projects' (which returns multiple projects) and 'get_organization' (which targets a different resource). However, it doesn't specify what details are included, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'a specific Supabase project,' suggesting it should be used when you have a project reference rather than listing all projects. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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