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 describes key behaviors: it downloads a file to a specified path, returns platform information for path formatting, and has prerequisites (DATABASE_URL, Supabase CLI). It does not mention error handling, performance, or rate limits, but covers essential 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.

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by key behaviors and prerequisites. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (involving file generation and external CLI usage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and prerequisites, but could benefit from details on error cases or output format beyond platform info.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the use of 'supabase gen types' and platform-specific path examples, but does not provide additional semantic context for parameters like included_schemas or output_filename.

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 ('Generates TypeScript types from the database schema') and resource ('using the Supabase CLI'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tables or execute_sql. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 for when to use this tool (for generating TypeScript types from a Supabase database schema) and mentions prerequisites (DATABASE_URL configuration, Supabase CLI installed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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