Skip to main content
Glama

Supabase: Invite user

supabase_invite_user
Destructive

Invite a new user to a Supabase project by email, creating them in an invited state and optionally setting a redirect URL and user metadata.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Send an email invitation to a new user. Creates user in 'invited' state.

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>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_invite_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
emailYes
redirect_toNo
user_metadataNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state and is not safe to retry. The description usefully adds that the created user lands in an 'invited' state and that an email is dispatched, but it does not explain failure modes (duplicate email), permission requirements, or why it is flagged destructive.

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 action and immediately followed by the resulting state. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise, but nothing else is wasted.

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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is thin: no return value expectations (does it return the created user, or just success?), no duplicate-handling behavior, and no documentation of optional inputs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It hints at the email parameter but says nothing about site, redirect_to, or user_metadata, leaving half the inputs undocumented anywhere.

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 (send an email invitation) and resource (new user), plus the resulting state ('invited'). It is distinguishable from create_user in spirit, but the description never names create_user explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'new user' implies a precondition (the user must not already exist) and 'send an email invitation' implies the invite flow, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus create_user, no statement of what happens when the email already exists, and no exclusions.

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