Retrieve a list of all Supabase projects to manage and monitor your database instances through the Supabase MCP Server interface.
List all Supabase projects
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_projects"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'List all' but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, access restrictions). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a database or API.
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 action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying 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 is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of projects. It doesn't explain what information is included in the listing (e.g., project names, IDs, statuses) or how to handle the results. For a list operation with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about return values.
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 one parameter ('ref') with 0% description coverage, so the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information. However, since there's only one parameter and the tool's purpose is straightforward (listing all projects), the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate for the schema gap but doesn't need extensive param details for this simple operation.
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 ('List all') and resource ('Supabase projects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_project', which retrieves a single project, so it misses the opportunity for sibling distinction.
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 like 'get_project' (for a single project) or 'list_organizations' (for related resources). It lacks any context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.