Lists all development branches of a Supabase project. This will return branch details including status which you can use to check when operations like merge/rebase/reset complete.
Bulk support: accepts project_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. The description adds that it returns branch details including status, which gives insight into what the tool reveals. It does not mention side effects (none expected) or additional caveats, but given the annotations, the transparency is adequate.
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: two sentences that cover the core action, the return value usefulness, and bulk support. There is no redundant information or vague phrasing, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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 covers the main purpose, the nature of the return (branch details with status), and the bulk capability. It also explains how the output can be used (for checking completion of operations). While it does not detail the exact output schema (which is not provided), the description is sufficiently complete for a list operation, given the annotations.
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 input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description only explains that 'project_ids' is for bulk execution, but does not clarify 'project_id' beyond being a project identifier. This leaves project_id's purpose implicit, and the coverage of parameters is less than 50% (only one of two parameters is described). The description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 purpose: 'Lists all development branches of a Supabase project.' This is a specific verb (lists) and resource (development branches), and it distinguishes the action from sibling tools like create_branch or delete_branch.
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 provides a use case: 'This will return branch details including status which you can use to check when operations like merge/rebase/reset complete.' This implies when to use the tool (to monitor completion of other operations). It also mentions bulk support via project_ids, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the listing vs. modification distinction is clear from the verb.
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.