Supabase ranks higher at 42/100 vs Awesome MCP Servers by wong2 at 23/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | Awesome MCP Servers by wong2 | Supabase |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Repository | MCP Server |
| UnfragileRank | 23/100 | 42/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 0 |
| Quality | 0 |
| 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 9 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Maintains a centralized, human-curated registry of 350+ MCP servers organized into six primary sections (Sponsors, Reference, Official, Community, Clients, Frameworks) within a single README.md source of truth. The catalog uses hierarchical categorization (Cloud/Infrastructure, Data/Database, DevOps, Business/Finance, Communication, AI/Search, Web Automation) with automated GitHub Actions validation to enforce alphabetical ordering, link validity, and submission format compliance before entries are merged.
Unique: Uses a zero-tolerance pull request policy enforced via GitHub Actions (pull_request_target event running in base repository context to prevent fork bypass) combined with an external web submission portal, creating a gated curation model that prevents direct contributions while maintaining a single authoritative README.md source of truth with 97.9% of repository importance concentrated in documentation rather than code.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive and actively maintained than generic awesome-lists because it enforces strict submission workflows and automated validation, while offering better discoverability than scattered official documentation by centralizing 350+ servers in one categorized location.
Implements a zero-tolerance submission policy using GitHub Actions that automatically closes any pull request opened against the repository within seconds of creation. The workflow uses the pull_request_target event (rather than pull_request) to execute in the base repository context, preventing contributors from bypassing the workflow by modifying workflow files in their forks. A standardized rejection comment directs users to the external web submission portal (mcpservers.org) as the only valid submission channel.
Unique: Uses pull_request_target event (which executes in base repository context) instead of pull_request event, making the workflow immune to bypass attempts via fork modifications — a security-focused design choice that ensures the rejection policy cannot be circumvented by malicious contributors modifying workflow files in their own forks.
vs alternatives: More robust than simple branch protection rules because it prevents PR creation entirely rather than just blocking merges, and more maintainable than manual PR review because it requires zero human intervention while providing consistent messaging.
Organizes 350+ MCP servers into a six-level hierarchy: primary sections (Reference, Official, Community), secondary categories (Cloud/Infrastructure, Data/Database, DevOps, Business/Finance, Communication, AI/Search, Web Automation), and tertiary entries with metadata (name, description, repository URL, language, status). The README.md structure uses markdown headers and nested lists to create a navigable taxonomy that allows users to browse by use case and deployment context. Alphabetical ordering within each category is enforced via automated GitHub Actions validation.
Unique: Uses a three-level hierarchy (primary sections → secondary categories → entries) combined with enforced alphabetical ordering via GitHub Actions validation, creating a deterministic, scannable structure that balances human discoverability with automated consistency checking — unlike flat awesome-lists that rely on manual maintenance.
vs alternatives: More discoverable than unorganized server lists because hierarchical categorization allows users to narrow scope by use case, while automated alphabetical validation prevents the entropy that typically degrades awesome-lists over time.
Provides an external web submission interface (mcpservers.org) that accepts new MCP server entries, validates them against submission criteria, and routes approved submissions to the GitHub repository maintainers. The portal acts as a gating layer that prevents direct Git contributions while collecting structured metadata (server name, description, repository URL, category, language) and performing pre-submission validation (duplicate detection, URL validity, category matching). Approved submissions are then integrated into the README.md catalog by maintainers.
Unique: Decouples submission interface from Git workflow by using an external web portal that validates and deduplicates submissions before they reach the repository, eliminating the need for maintainers to manually review and reject invalid PRs — a design pattern that trades transparency for operational efficiency.
vs alternatives: More scalable than direct GitHub PRs because it prevents invalid submissions from cluttering the repository and provides pre-validation, but less transparent than community-driven awesome-lists because submission criteria and approval process are not publicly visible.
Provides documentation of the Model Context Protocol (MCP) architecture, including JSON-RPC 2.0 message format, three core primitives (Tools, Resources, Prompts), and three transport mechanisms (STDIO for local processes, SSE for remote HTTP, HTTP for REST wrappers). The repository includes references to deployment patterns (local spawned processes, remote cloud services, containerized deployments, hybrid configurations) and client-server interaction patterns, enabling developers to understand how MCP servers integrate with AI applications and what capabilities they can expose.
Unique: Serves as a secondary reference hub for MCP protocol details alongside the primary server registry, providing architectural context (JSON-RPC 2.0, three primitives, three transports, deployment patterns) that helps developers understand how servers fit into the broader MCP ecosystem — bridging the gap between protocol specification and practical server implementations.
vs alternatives: More accessible than raw protocol specifications because it contextualizes MCP within the server registry, showing developers how protocol concepts map to real server implementations, while remaining more focused than comprehensive protocol documentation by highlighting only ecosystem-relevant details.
Catalogs 10+ MCP-compatible AI tools and IDEs (clients) and 8+ development frameworks for building MCP servers, enabling developers to find integration points for their servers or discover tools that support MCP protocol. The registry includes both official clients (from companies like Anthropic) and community-built clients, along with frameworks that abstract common MCP server patterns (authentication, tool registration, resource management, prompt templating). This section helps developers understand the ecosystem of tools that can consume MCP servers.
Unique: Complements the server registry by cataloging the demand side of the MCP ecosystem (clients and frameworks) in the same repository, creating a bidirectional discovery mechanism where server developers can see what clients exist and client developers can see what servers are available — a holistic ecosystem view that most protocol registries lack.
vs alternatives: More useful than separate client and framework documentation because it centralizes discovery in one place, allowing developers to understand both supply (servers) and demand (clients/frameworks) sides of the MCP ecosystem simultaneously.
Implements GitHub Actions-based validation that checks all server entries within each category are in strict alphabetical order, rejecting or flagging pull requests that violate this constraint. The validation runs on every submission attempt and provides clear error messages indicating which entries are out of order. This automation ensures consistent catalog structure without requiring manual review of alphabetical compliance, reducing maintenance burden and preventing entropy that typically degrades community-maintained lists over time.
Unique: Automates a tedious but critical consistency check that would otherwise require manual review, using GitHub Actions to validate alphabetical ordering on every submission attempt — a pattern that trades some flexibility (can't easily highlight popular servers) for operational efficiency and long-term maintainability.
vs alternatives: More scalable than manual review because it requires zero human intervention, while more effective than simple branch protection rules because it catches violations before they reach the repository and provides specific error messages.
Executes SQL queries against Supabase PostgreSQL instances through the Model Context Protocol, translating natural language or structured query requests into parameterized SQL statements. Uses MCP's tool-calling interface to expose database operations as callable functions with schema validation, enabling LLM agents to perform CRUD operations, joins, and aggregations with automatic connection pooling and credential management through Supabase client SDK.
Unique: Exposes Supabase PostgreSQL as MCP tools with automatic credential injection from Supabase client SDK, eliminating manual connection string management and enabling seamless LLM-to-database queries within Claude or compatible agents
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than generic SQL MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in authentication and connection pooling rather than requiring separate database credential configuration
Exposes Supabase Auth session state and user metadata through MCP tools, allowing agents to inspect current authentication context, retrieve user profiles, and trigger auth-related operations. Integrates with Supabase's JWT-based auth system to validate sessions and access user claims without re-authenticating, using the Supabase client's built-in session management.
Unique: Integrates Supabase's JWT-based auth system directly into MCP tool interface, allowing agents to inspect and act on auth state without managing separate credential stores or re-authentication flows
vs alternatives: More seamless than generic auth MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in session management and avoids redundant credential passing between agent and auth system
Invokes Supabase Edge Functions (serverless TypeScript/JavaScript functions) through MCP tools, passing parameters and receiving results with optional streaming support. Uses Supabase's edge function HTTP API to trigger functions with automatic authentication headers and response parsing, enabling agents to execute custom business logic without embedding it in the agent itself.
Supabase scores higher at 42/100 vs Awesome MCP Servers by wong2 at 23/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Edge Functions as MCP tools with automatic authentication and response parsing, allowing agents to invoke custom serverless logic without managing HTTP clients or credential injection
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic HTTP MCP tools because it handles Supabase-specific authentication, error handling, and response formatting automatically
Subscribes to real-time changes on Supabase tables through MCP's event streaming interface, using Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY mechanism to push INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE events to agents. Maintains persistent WebSocket connections and filters events by table and row-level policies, enabling agents to react to database changes without polling.
Unique: Bridges Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY real-time system with MCP's tool interface, enabling agents to subscribe to database changes without managing WebSocket connections or event serialization
vs alternatives: More efficient than polling-based approaches because it uses Supabase's native real-time infrastructure rather than repeated database queries
Manages files in Supabase Storage buckets through MCP tools, supporting upload, download, list, and delete operations with automatic authentication and path-based access control. Uses Supabase's S3-compatible storage API with built-in support for public/private buckets and signed URLs for temporary access, enabling agents to handle file I/O without managing cloud storage credentials.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Storage's S3-compatible API as MCP tools with automatic authentication and signed URL generation, eliminating the need for agents to manage cloud storage credentials or generate temporary access tokens
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic S3 MCP tools because it leverages Supabase's built-in bucket policies and authentication rather than requiring separate AWS credentials
Performs semantic similarity searches on vector embeddings stored in Supabase PostgreSQL using pgvector extension, translating natural language queries into embedding vectors and executing cosine/L2 distance searches. Integrates with embedding providers (OpenAI, Cohere) or uses pre-computed embeddings, enabling agents to retrieve semantically similar documents or records without full-text search limitations.
Unique: Integrates pgvector directly into MCP tools with automatic embedding generation and distance calculation, enabling agents to perform semantic search without managing separate vector database infrastructure
vs alternatives: More efficient than external vector databases (Pinecone, Weaviate) for Supabase users because it colocates embeddings with relational data, reducing network latency and simplifying data synchronization
Exposes Supabase database schema information through MCP tools, allowing agents to discover table structures, column types, constraints, and relationships without manual schema documentation. Queries PostgreSQL information_schema and Supabase metadata tables to dynamically generate schema descriptions, enabling agents to construct valid queries and understand data relationships.
Unique: Queries Supabase's PostgreSQL information_schema directly through MCP tools, enabling agents to dynamically discover and adapt to database schemas without pre-configured schema definitions
vs alternatives: More flexible than static schema definitions because it reflects live database state, including recent migrations or schema changes
Enforces Supabase Row-Level Security policies within agent queries, ensuring that agents can only access rows permitted by RLS rules defined in the database. Evaluates policies based on authenticated user context (JWT claims, user ID) and applies WHERE clause filters automatically, preventing unauthorized data access at the database layer rather than application layer.
Unique: Delegates authorization enforcement to PostgreSQL RLS policies rather than implementing authorization in agent code, ensuring that data access rules are centralized and cannot be bypassed by agent logic
vs alternatives: More secure than application-level authorization because RLS is enforced at the database layer, preventing accidental data leaks even if agent code has bugs
+1 more capabilities