connector_supabase_fetchFetch one Supabase resource by its native ID for direct lookups, validation, or downstream processing.
Fetch a single resource from Supabase by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Native resource ID to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description characterizes this as a plain read ('fetch ... by its ID'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, i.e. a mutating, destructive operation. Nothing in the description explains the write/destructive behavior or its consequences, so the two directly conflict.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue at this complexity.
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 one-parameter connector call there is no output schema and no statement of what a fetched 'resource' contains or what errors/auth failures look like. Combined with the unresolved conflict between 'fetch' and the destructive annotations, an agent cannot call this safely or predictably.
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?
Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents resource_id. The phrase 'by its ID' matches the parameter but adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail 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?
States a specific verb (fetch), a resource (a single Supabase resource) and the lookup key (its ID). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like connector_supabase_act, and 'resource' is left generic (row? table? file?).
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus connector_supabase_act or any search-style sibling, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.