Supabase MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves API keys but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely accesses sensitive data like API keys.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 complexity of handling API keys (sensitive data) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like security implications, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The minimal information provided is insufficient for this 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a specific Supabase project' but doesn't explain the 'ref' parameter (required) or the 'name' parameter (optional), leaving their meanings unclear. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('Get') and resource ('API keys for a specific Supabase project'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'list_projects', which might also retrieve project-related information, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 prerequisites, such as needing a project reference, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'list_projects' that might handle related data. This lack of context leaves usage ambiguous.

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