Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Supabase: Invoke function get

supabase_invoke_function_get
Read-only

Invoke a Supabase Edge Function via GET for read-only operations, enabling safe data retrieval without changing backend state.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Invoke a Supabase Edge Function with GET method. Use for read-only operations.

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>",
      "function_name": "<function_name>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_invoke_function_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
paramsNo
function_nameYes

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=true, and the description is consistent with that by calling out GET and read-only use. Beyond that it adds nothing: no auth requirements, no error behavior, no note on how params are transmitted on a GET request.

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, front-loaded sentences with the method and the usage class stated immediately. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is noise, but the rest of the text is tight.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves too much open — notably how params are encoded on a GET call and what a successful response looks like. Annotations only cover the safety profile.

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 all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: site, function_name, and params are never explained. The only hint is that a function is being invoked, which implies function_name but says nothing about the format of params (raw query string vs JSON).

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 and resource — invoke a Supabase Edge Function — plus the distinguishing constraint that it uses the GET method. That separates it from the generic supabase_invoke_function sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"Use for read-only operations" gives a clear usage condition, but it stops short of naming the alternative (supabase_invoke_function for POST/mutating calls) or stating any exclusions, so the agent must infer the routing from the sibling name alone.

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