Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
supabase-notion MCP Server

supabase-notion MCP Server

by xhq52465840
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List Supabase tables

supabase_list_tables
Read-only

Lists accessible Supabase tables with their columns and row counts so you can learn the database schema before querying or inserting data.

Instructions

List the tables this server may access, with their columns and row counts. Call this first to learn the schema.

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": "supabase_list_tables"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuinely new context: results are permission-scoped ('tables this server may access'), so an agent knows an empty result may mean no access rather than no tables. It does not mention whether row counts are exact/approximate or costly to compute.

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, with the scope and return content front-loaded before the usage cue. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does name the three elements returned (tables, columns, row counts). It leaves the nesting/format of that payload and whether row counts can be stale unspecified, which is a minor gap for a simple discovery tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing a blanket listing.

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 ('List the tables') plus what is returned ('columns and row counts') and scopes it to what 'this server may access'. It is clearly distinct from supabase_query/insert by implication ('learn the schema'), but never names the query sibling as what you would use next.

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?

'Call this first to learn the schema' gives a clear ordering cue about when in the workflow to use it. It stops short of explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g. use supabase_query for actual data retrieval), so the guidance is directional rather than complete.

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