supabase-notion MCP Server

Insert rows into Supabase

supabase_insert

Inserts one or more rows into an allowed Supabase table and returns the created records, requiring user confirmation before the write.

Instructions

Insert one or more rows into an allowed table and return the created rows. Confirm with the user before inserting.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "table": "<table>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_insert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rows`	Yes
`table`	Yes	One of: customers, support_tickets, leads

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds real value: it discloses that created rows are returned and that user confirmation is expected before the write. It does not say how duplicates/constraint violations or conflicts are handled, which is the notable remaining gap for an insert.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and returning the safety instruction last. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers action, row cardinality, return value, and a confirmation requirement. Missing is any statement of failure behavior or of row-object field expectations, which keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

At 50% schema coverage, the schema already documents `table` with an enumerated allowed list, while `rows` (array of objects, 1–50 items) is undocumented beyond type constraints. The description only echoes "one or more rows" and doesn't explain the required shape of each row object or whether omitted columns default, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds syntax.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (insert rows into a table) plus the post-condition (return the created rows), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like supabase_query and supabase_list_tables. It stops short of naming an alternative or explicitly contrasting behavior, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Confirm with the user before inserting" gives concrete invocation guidance, and "allowed table" signals a precondition on which tables may be targeted. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over other write paths or what to do on failure, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server