Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
supabase-mcp-server

supabase-mcp-server

by mustafaautomation
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List tables

list_tables
Read-only

Lists tables and views visible to the current role in exposed schemas and shows whether row-level security is enabled, so you can inspect database structure and RLS coverage.

Instructions

Lists tables and views in the exposed schemas that the current role can see, with whether row-level security is enabled.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_tables"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaNopublic

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: results are filtered by schema exposure and the caller's role privileges, and each entry reports whether row-level security is enabled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tightly written sentence with no filler, and the core action plus visibility scoping is front-loaded before the returned attribute.

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 simple one-parameter catalog tool with annotations covering safety, the description conveys intent and one returned field (RLS enabled) without explaining the rest of the returned columns or ordering. The undocumented `schema` parameter is the main residual 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 `schema` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a default of "public", yet the description never mentions it or explains that omitting it scopes to the default schema. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 ("lists tables and views") plus meaningful scope qualifiers: exposed schemas, role-visible objects, and RLS status. It is easily distinguished from describe_table/select_rows/count_rows by being a catalog listing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before describe_table or select_rows, but the description never says when to prefer it over a sibling or what it is not for. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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