Skip to main content
Glama
NightTrek

Supabase MCP Server

by NightTrek
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: generate_types focuses on TypeScript type generation from the database schema, while query_table handles data retrieval from specific tables with filtering. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (generate_types and query_table), using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable without any deviations.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a Supabase integration, which typically involves operations like create, update, delete, and schema management beyond just querying and type generation. This limited set may hinder agent workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks essential CRUD operations (e.g., insert, update, delete) and other Supabase features like authentication or real-time subscriptions, making it severely incomplete for typical database interactions. Agents will face significant gaps in functionality.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    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. It states the tool queries a table but doesn't mention whether this is read-only (likely but not confirmed), what permissions are required, whether it supports pagination/limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the main purpose immediately.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a database query tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address key contextual elements like: whether this is a safe read operation, what authentication/permissions are needed, how results are returned (format, size limits), error conditions, or relationship to the sibling tool. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'schema selection and where clause support' which aligns with parameters in the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('Query') and resource ('a specific table'), with additional functionality mentioned ('schema selection and where clause support'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'generate_types' by focusing on data retrieval rather than type generation. However, it doesn't specify if this is a read-only query or might modify data.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions functionality but doesn't indicate scenarios where this tool is appropriate, prerequisites for use, or limitations compared to other query methods. The sibling tool 'generate_types' serves a completely different purpose, so no comparative guidance is needed.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works - whether it connects to a live database, reads from configuration files, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one simple parameter and gets straight to the point.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a tool that presumably generates code/types from a database schema, the description is minimal. With no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain what the output looks like (TypeScript files? Inline code?), how errors are handled, or any dependencies or requirements. The description is functional but lacks important context for effective use.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the single optional 'schema' parameter with its default value. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the specific action ('Generate TypeScript types') and target resource ('your Supabase database schema'), providing a complete purpose statement. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query_table' which appears to be for data querying rather than schema type generation.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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, nor any context about prerequisites or constraints. While it's clear what the tool does, there's no information about appropriate use cases or limitations.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Supabase-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Supabase-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/NightTrek/Supabase-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server