Skip to main content
Glama

Supabase

by io.github.mcp-dir

supabase_deploy_edge_function

Deploys an Edge Function to a Supabase project. If the function already exists, this will create a new version. Example:

import "jsr:@supabase/functions-js/edge-runtime.d.ts";

Deno.serve(async (req: Request) => { const data = { message: "Hello there!" };

return new Response(JSON.stringify(data), { headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', 'Connection': 'keep-alive' } }); });

Bulk support: accepts project_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
filesYes
project_idYes
verify_jwtYes
project_idsNo
entrypoint_pathYes
import_map_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it creates a new version if the function exists, but does not disclose side effects like overwriting or the impact on existing versions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise, but the inclusion of a large code example may be excessive for a tool definition, especially given the space constraints. However, the core text is front-loaded and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 7 parameters (5 required), low schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description lacks important context about the deployment process (e.g., required permissions, expected response, rollback or failure handling). The example provides some context but is not sufficient for a complex deployment operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage deep in properties, the description only adds an example but does not clarify the meaning of key parameters like 'verify_jwt', 'entrypoint_path', 'import_map_path', or 'files'. The example implies usage but fails to explain the parameters' roles, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool deploys an Edge Function and mentions versioning behavior if the function exists. It distinguishes from siblings like supabase_list_edge_functions and supabase_get_edge_function by focusing on deployment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions bulk support but lacks exclusions or context for when to use other deployment or management tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Supabase toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources