Skip to main content
Glama

Supabase: Search users

supabase_search_users
Read-only

Search Supabase users by email or phone number to locate accounts and retrieve paginated results for user management tasks.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Search users by email or phone number.

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>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_search_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
siteYes
queryYes
per_pageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 should add matching behavior (exact vs partial, case sensitivity) or admin-permission requirements — it does neither. Beyond identifying which fields are searched, it contributes no behavioral context, and with no annotations covering scope this leaves real gaps.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and is free of padding. The unexplained "[UNIFIED]" prefix is the one piece of noise that does not help an agent decide anything.

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?

Four parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema demand a fuller description than one sentence. Pagination defaults, the meaning of `site`, and what a match returns are all left undocumented, which is inadequate for a search tool whose result shape is unknown.

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%, so the description must carry the burden for all four parameters. It only vaguely gestures at the required `query` (email or phone) and says nothing about `site`, `page`, or `per_page`, nor which one of the two matched fields the query is interpreted as.

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 ("Search users") and narrows the lookup to email or phone number, so the agent knows what the tool retrieves. It does not distinguish this from the sibling supabase_list_users, leaving the search-vs-list boundary to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as supabase_list_users for enumerating accounts. The only hint is the phrase "by email or phone number," which implies a targeted lookup but never states it as a selection rule.

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