Self-Hosted 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 effectively communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Deletes'), specifies authentication requirements ('Requires service_role key'), and mentions infrastructure dependencies ('direct DB connection'). It doesn't cover rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to associated data, but provides solid foundational 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 with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second specifies critical requirements. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the action, target, identifier, and critical requirements. It could be more complete by mentioning what 'deletes' entails (permanent removal vs soft delete) or what happens to user data, but it provides sufficient context for safe invocation given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'user_id' already well-documented in the schema as 'The UUID of the user to delete.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high 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 specific action ('Deletes'), target resource ('a user from auth.users'), and identifier mechanism ('by their ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_auth_user' and 'update_auth_user' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Deletes a user from auth.users by their ID') and mentions prerequisites ('Requires service_role key and direct DB connection'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related operations like 'get_auth_user' or 'list_auth_users'.

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