Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Supabase: List extensions

supabase_list_extensions
Read-only

Lists installed PostgreSQL extensions such as pgvector, PostGIS, and uuid-ossp for a Supabase site, helping you verify available database features.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List installed PostgreSQL extensions (e.g., pgvector, postgis, uuid-ossp).

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_list_extensions"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The word "installed" adds real value by signaling it returns only enabled extensions rather than the full available catalog, but nothing is said about ordering, pagination, or response shape.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is perhaps slightly too terse given the undocumented required parameter, but nothing is redundant.

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 simple read tool with no output schema this is close to adequate, but the only required parameter is left completely undefined in both schema and description, and there is no statement about what the listing contains beyond the resource name.

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" has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no hint about what a site identifier is or where to obtain it. This is the one real gap the definition should have compensated for.

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 ("List installed PostgreSQL extensions") plus concrete examples (pgvector, postgis, uuid-ossp), which clearly separates it from sibling list tools like supabase_list_tables or supabase_list_roles. It does not explicitly contrast with supabase_enable_extension/disable_extension, but the read-only framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the enable/disable extension tools. The agent must infer that this is the inspection step before enabling or disabling an extension.

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