Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Supabase: List schemas

supabase_list_schemas
Read-only

Lists all database schemas (namespaces) for a Supabase site so you can inspect available namespaces before managing tables or data.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List all database schemas (namespaces).

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_schemas"
  }
}

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It contributes the scope word "all" and the schemas/namespaces equivalence, but says nothing about permissions required, whether system schemas are included, or the shape of the result.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only removable element is the unexplained "[UNIFIED]" tag, which adds no meaning for an agent.

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 tool with one mandatory, undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing what to pass and what comes back. A sentence defining "site" and noting that it returns schema names would close the gap.

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 the description never mentions it — it does not say whether site is a project ref, hostname, or environment selector. Low coverage means the description had to compensate here and it does not, though the "Supabase:" title prefix offers a weak hint.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — listing database schemas, with the clarifying gloss "(namespaces)" — which cleanly separates it from siblings like supabase_list_tables or supabase_list_roles. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained noise, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus supabase_list_tables or supabase_list_extensions, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether elevated credentials are needed to enumerate schemas). The only implicit signal is the word "List", which conveys read intent but not selection logic.

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