Creates a new Supabase project with specified name, organization, region, and database password. Provisions live resources and requires human approval.
Create a new Supabase project (LIVE — provisions resources). Human approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| org_id | Yes | ||
| region | Yes | ||
| db_pass | Yes | ||
| approval_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most critical traits: the operation is LIVE and provisions real resources (a mutating side effect with likely cost), and it requires human approval. It still omits cost implications, whether the action is reversible, and how approval_id ties into the call.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical LIVE/provisioning and approval warnings. Every fragment earns its place with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description flags the live/provisioning nature. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, it leaves notable gaps around cost, prerequisites, and parameter expectations.
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 0% and the description gives no meaning for any of the 5 parameters (name, org_id, region, db_pass, approval_id); the schema only declares types. The description fails to compensate, leaving formats and constraints entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new Supabase project") that is immediately distinguishable from the read-only siblings supabase_list_projects, supabase_list_orgs, and supabase_get_keys. An agent can tell what this tool does without inspecting the schema.
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?
"Human approval" implies a gating prerequisite for invoking it and implies this is the provisioning step that must precede supabase_run_sql/supabase_set_secret, but no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.