| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 9 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Implements the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server specification, enabling bidirectional communication between Claude/LLM clients and local or remote tools via standardized JSON-RPC messaging. The server exposes resources, tools, and prompts as MCP-compliant endpoints that clients can discover and invoke, with built-in support for streaming responses and error handling through the MCP transport layer.
Unique: Specifically designed as an MCP server for threat/sentinel monitoring use cases, likely exposing security-specific tools and resources (threat detection, alert analysis, incident response) through the MCP protocol rather than generic tool integration
vs alternatives: Provides native MCP protocol support for threat monitoring workflows, enabling tighter integration with Claude's native tool-calling compared to REST API wrappers or custom integrations
Exposes threat monitoring data, alerts, and security intelligence as MCP resources that clients can discover and retrieve. Resources are identified by URIs and can return structured threat data (alerts, indicators, events) in formats optimized for LLM processing, with support for filtering, pagination, and real-time updates through the MCP resource subscription mechanism.
Unique: Leverages MCP's resource protocol to expose threat data as discoverable, queryable endpoints rather than embedding threat context directly in prompts, enabling dynamic threat intelligence retrieval without modifying LLM instructions
vs alternatives: More efficient than prompt-based threat context injection because resources are lazy-loaded only when Claude requests them, reducing token usage and enabling access to larger threat datasets
Registers security-specific tools (threat detection, alert analysis, incident response actions) in the MCP tool registry with JSON schemas that define parameters, return types, and execution semantics. Claude can discover these tools, understand their capabilities through schema inspection, and invoke them with structured arguments, receiving results that feed back into the LLM reasoning loop for iterative threat analysis.
Unique: Implements threat-specific tool schemas that encode security domain knowledge (alert severity, indicator types, response actions) into the tool registry, enabling Claude to reason about threat context with proper semantic understanding rather than generic function calling
vs alternatives: Provides schema-driven threat tool invocation that's more maintainable and safer than prompt-based tool descriptions, with built-in validation and type checking for security-critical operations
Exposes reusable prompt templates through the MCP prompts mechanism that guide Claude through structured threat analysis workflows. Templates can include system instructions for threat assessment, few-shot examples of alert analysis, and workflow scaffolding that ensures consistent threat evaluation methodology across multiple analysis sessions.
Unique: Encodes threat analysis best practices and organizational security policies as reusable MCP prompt templates, enabling consistent threat assessment methodology without modifying Claude's core instructions for each analysis session
vs alternatives: More maintainable than embedding threat methodology in system prompts because templates can be versioned, updated, and swapped without redeploying the MCP server or changing client configuration
Implements MCP subscription/streaming mechanisms to push threat events, alerts, and security updates from the server to connected Claude clients in real-time. Uses server-sent events (SSE) or WebSocket-based streaming to deliver threat data as it occurs, enabling Claude to react to emerging threats without polling or waiting for explicit resource requests.
Unique: Implements server-push threat streaming through MCP subscriptions, enabling Claude to receive threat events without polling, which is critical for time-sensitive security operations where alert latency directly impacts incident response time
vs alternatives: More efficient than polling-based threat monitoring because events are delivered immediately rather than waiting for the next scheduled query, reducing mean-time-to-detection (MTTD) for emerging threats
Aggregates threat data from multiple backend sources (SIEM, threat feeds, monitoring platforms, APIs) and normalizes it into a unified format that the MCP server exposes to Claude. Handles schema translation, data enrichment, and format conversion so Claude receives consistent threat intelligence regardless of source, with built-in deduplication and correlation logic.
Unique: Implements threat data aggregation and normalization at the MCP server layer, enabling Claude to work with unified threat intelligence without requiring custom parsing logic for each source, which reduces complexity and improves threat analysis consistency
vs alternatives: More maintainable than having Claude parse multiple threat formats because normalization logic is centralized in the server, making it easier to add new threat sources and update schemas without modifying Claude's analysis logic
Maintains conversation state within the MCP server that includes relevant threat context, previous analysis results, and incident history. Automatically injects this context into Claude's conversation history so the LLM can reason about threat patterns across multiple interactions without requiring explicit context passing, using MCP's context management capabilities.
Unique: Implements threat-specific conversation state management that automatically injects relevant historical threat data and previous analysis into Claude's context, enabling multi-turn threat investigations without explicit context passing
vs alternatives: More efficient than manually passing threat context in each message because the server maintains state and only injects relevant context, reducing token usage and improving response latency compared to stateless approaches
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 sentineltm at 25/100. sentineltm leads on ecosystem, while Supabase is stronger on quality.
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