Gets logs for a Supabase project by service type. Use this to help debug problems with your app. This will return logs within the last 24 hours.
Bulk support: accepts project_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| project_ids | No |
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?
The description aligns with annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and adds the specific behavior of returning logs only from the last 24 hours. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational details. No side effects are mentioned, which is consistent with the read-only nature.
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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two brief sentences. It covers the core function, the use case, the time constraint, and bulk support without redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.
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?
The description provides enough context for typical usage: it states the purpose, the time window, and bulk capability. It does not specify output format or error handling, but these are absent from the schema as well. The relationship between project_id and project_ids is implicit but acceptable. Overall, it covers the essential aspects for a logs tool.
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 description explains the 'service' parameter as a filter by service type and clarifies that 'project_ids' is for bulk execution. It does not explicitly describe 'project_id', but that is straightforward given the context. The schema already provides enum values for service, and the description adds practical meaning for the optional bulk parameter.
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's function: retrieving logs for a Supabase project by service type. It specifies the resource (logs), the primary parameter (service type), and the context (debugging). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle log retrieval.
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 explicitly recommends using this tool to debug application problems, giving a clear use case. It also mentions bulk support via project_ids, which guides usage for multiple projects. However, it does not directly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.
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.