Supabase MCP Server

delete_project

Remove a Supabase project by its reference ID to manage cloud resources and maintain clean project organization.

Instructions

Delete a Supabase project

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.2Feb 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or returns any output. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple destructive operation and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like irreversible consequences, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'ref' represents (e.g., project reference ID) or provide context about its format. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher than for multi-parameter tools.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a Supabase project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'get_project' beyond the obvious verb difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), consequences of deletion, or when to choose deletion over other operations like archiving. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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

Deploy Server