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. 'List all organizations' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether it returns all organizations at once or uses pagination, what permissions are required, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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.

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

The description is perfectly concise at just three words ('List all organizations'). It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more complete context for this tool. A simple list operation still needs information about what 'all' means (pagination?), what an 'organization' represents in this system, and what the output format looks like. The current description is too minimal for adequate agent understanding.

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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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 'List all organizations' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('organizations'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization' or 'list_projects', which would require more specific scope information to earn a 5.

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 when this tool is appropriate compared to 'get_organization' (for single organization details) or 'list_projects' (for listing projects instead of organizations), leaving the agent without usage context.

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