Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Supabase: Health check

supabase_health_check
Read-only

Checks the health status of all Supabase services (PostgREST, GoTrue, Storage) for a given site and returns each service's status.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Check health of all Supabase services (PostgREST, GoTrue, Storage). Returns status for each service.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful detail that results are per-service (PostgREST, GoTrue, Storage), but says nothing about failure semantics, timeouts, or whether a failed service surfaces as an error or a status field.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and service list; no waste. The bracketed "[UNIFIED]" tag is mild clutter but arguably signals supersession.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description omits the only parameter's meaning and never describes the return shape beyond "status for each service". An agent cannot confidently supply "site" from this definition alone.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single required parameter "site" is completely undocumented at 0% schema coverage, and the description never mentions it. With low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what "site" identifies, but it does not.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (health of all Supabase services), enumerating the three services covered. It is distinguishable from siblings like supabase_check_function_health, though it does not explicitly name that narrower tool as an alternative.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the more specific supabase_check_function_health or check_all_projects_health. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix hints at a canonical entry point, but the agent must infer that.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools