Insert one or more rows into a Supabase table by passing the table name and data. Add single or multiple records during MCP Supabase Server operations.
Insert one or more rows into a Supabase table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Data to insert (single object or array of objects) | |
| table | Yes | Table name to insert into |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says 'insert one or more rows.' It omits whether inserts require elevated permissions or RLS policy, what happens on conflict/duplicate keys, whether it is upsert-capable, and whether inserted rows are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects minimal content rather than disciplined editing of rich material.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is adequate to call the tool but leaves conflict handling, permissions, and return behavior unspecified. It is minimally viable rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form, establishing a baseline of 3. The phrase 'one or more rows' loosely echoes the single-object-or-array anyOf in the schema but adds no format, key-matching, or type guidance beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (insert) and resource (rows into a Supabase table), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like supabase_update, supabase_delete, and supabase_query. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the operation itself is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (permissions, RLS, table existence), and never points to alternatives such as supabase_rpc or batch strategies. An agent must infer entirely from the verb and the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.