supabase-mcp-server

Connection context

whoami

Read-only

Shows the current Supabase role and user ID, exposed schemas, row cap, and SQL/write status so you can verify connection permissions without exposing credentials.

Instructions

Shows which Supabase role and user id the server queries as, which schemas are exposed, the row cap and whether SQL and writes are enabled. Never returns credentials.

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": "whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: it enumerates exactly what is returned (role, user id, exposed schemas, row cap, SQL/write enablement) and proactively states "Never returns credentials," which is meaningful security context an agent cannot get from the schema. It stops short of describing return shape or format.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The substantive content (what is reported) comes first and the safety caveat ("Never returns credentials") closes it. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of indicating return values, and it does so field-by-field. For a parameterless read-only diagnostic this is nearly complete; only the container/format of the response (single object vs. keyed sections) is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and does not invent parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Shows") and a specific resource (the Supabase role/user id the server queries as, exposed schemas, row cap, SQL/write flags). This is unambiguously distinct from the sibling data tools (list_tables, describe_table, select_rows, count_rows), which all operate on schema/data rather than connection identity.

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 diagnostic to call before running queries to check whether SQL or writes are enabled, or which schemas are reachable. There is no explicit "use this when..." clause, no statement of when not to use it, and no named alternative. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server