| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 9 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Fetches real-time quota consumption metrics from Z.ai's GLM Coding Plan API, parsing structured usage data including total quota limits, consumed tokens, remaining capacity, and plan tier information. Implements MCP server protocol to expose quota endpoints as standardized tools callable from OpenCode IDE, abstracting authentication and API versioning details behind a unified interface.
Unique: Exposes Z.ai GLM quota as native MCP tools within OpenCode IDE rather than requiring separate dashboard access, enabling quota checks as part of the development workflow without context switching. Implements Z.ai-specific quota schema parsing rather than generic usage APIs.
vs alternatives: Tighter IDE integration than checking Z.ai web dashboard manually, and more specific to GLM Coding Plans than generic cloud cost monitoring tools like CloudZero or Kubecost
Disaggregates quota consumption by individual GLM model variants (e.g., GLM-4, GLM-3.5-turbo), returning per-model token counts and cost attribution. Queries Z.ai's usage analytics API with model filtering parameters and aggregates results into a structured breakdown, enabling developers to identify which models are consuming quota most heavily.
Unique: Provides GLM model-specific disaggregation rather than treating quota as a monolithic pool, leveraging Z.ai's native usage analytics API to attribute consumption to individual model variants with cost mapping.
vs alternatives: More granular than generic cloud billing tools, and specific to GLM model economics rather than generic LLM cost tracking
Collects and aggregates statistics on which MCP tools (function calls) are consuming quota within the Z.ai GLM Coding Plan, returning call counts, average token consumption per tool, and total quota attribution. Implements tool-level telemetry collection by intercepting MCP function call invocations and correlating them with Z.ai API usage logs.
Unique: Correlates MCP tool invocations with Z.ai quota consumption at the tool level, providing visibility into which integrations are most expensive rather than treating all tool calls as equivalent. Implements telemetry collection at the MCP protocol layer.
vs alternatives: More specific to MCP tool economics than generic function call profiling, and integrated into the OpenCode workflow rather than requiring external observability tools
Allows developers to set custom warning thresholds (e.g., alert when 80% of quota is consumed) and receive notifications when consumption crosses those thresholds. Implements a polling-based monitor that periodically queries current quota usage and compares against configured thresholds, triggering IDE notifications or webhook callbacks when limits are approached.
Unique: Integrates quota alerting directly into the OpenCode IDE workflow with configurable thresholds and multi-channel notification support, rather than requiring separate monitoring dashboards. Implements client-side threshold logic rather than relying on Z.ai server-side alerts.
vs alternatives: More proactive than manual dashboard checks, and more integrated than generic cloud cost monitoring alerts because it's aware of GLM Coding Plan semantics
Analyzes historical quota consumption patterns over configurable time windows (7 days, 30 days) and projects forward to estimate when quota will be exhausted at current burn rate. Implements time-series analysis by fetching historical usage snapshots from Z.ai API, fitting a linear or exponential regression model, and computing projected depletion date with confidence intervals.
Unique: Applies time-series forecasting to GLM quota consumption rather than treating usage as a static snapshot, enabling proactive quota management. Implements regression-based projection with confidence intervals rather than naive linear extrapolation.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than simple 'days remaining' calculations, and specific to GLM quota semantics rather than generic cloud cost forecasting
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 opencode-glm-quota at 26/100.
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