Skip to main content
Glama

Supabase: List tables

supabase_list_tables
Read-only

List database tables with pagination and return names, schemas, and basic metadata to inspect available Supabase tables.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List all tables in the database with pagination. Returns table names, schemas, and basic metadata.

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_tables"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
limitNo
offsetNo
schemaNopublic

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add pagination behavior and the shape of returned items (names, schemas, basic metadata), which goes beyond the annotation, but says nothing about permissions, result size limits, or what 'basic metadata' contains.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and return values attached. The only waste is the '[UNIFIED]' tag, which conveys nothing to a calling agent.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers purpose and rough return shape but leaves the required 'site' argument and the 'schema' filter unexplained. It is adequate to select the tool but not to call it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 4 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only hints at pagination (limit/offset) and never explains the required 'site' parameter or the 'schema' filter with its 'public' default—the two parameters an agent is most likely to get wrong.

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 all tables in the database' and notes the returned fields (names, schemas, metadata). This distinguishes it from siblings like supabase_list_schemas or supabase_list_policies, though the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise rather than differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose—an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate tables. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer supabase_list_schemas, and no prerequisites (e.g., required site context) called out.

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