Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior (when all providers connected vs. missing credentials) and what the return values mean (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url). This goes beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the main behavior and the conditional case without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what the response contains. It could mention the format of per-install URLs, but that's a minor gap.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description explains the output semantics, which is the main value since there are no parameters to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds meaningful context about the return values.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about authenticated state and pending connections. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status/URLs rather than the authentication action itself.
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?
The description implies usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. It provides context on what the tool returns but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The Supabase-prefixed tools are all distinct CRUD/lifecycle operations on different resource types (projects, branches, migrations, edge functions, etc.). The platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) have clear non-overlapping purposes, though their names could momentarily be confused with Supabase-specific actions if an agent doesn't read descriptions.
The 29 supabase_* tools follow a consistent 'supabase_<verb>_<noun>' pattern. However, the 6 non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break this convention and are inconsistent among themselves, creating a mixed naming style across the set.
At 35 tools, the server is overweight. While the Supabase domain is broad (project management, database, edge functions, branches), the inclusion of 6 unrelated platform tools inflates the count. 29 domain tools still exceeds the comfortable 15-tool upper bound, making the surface feel bloated for agents to navigate.
The tool set covers core workflows: project lifecycle (create, get, list, pause, restore), branching (create, delete, list, merge, rebase, reset), SQL/migrations, edge functions, cost estimation, and advisors. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete_project, no update operations for projects or branches, and no deletion for edge functions, which leave lifecycle coverage incomplete.