Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
supabase-rls-check

supabase-rls-check

by Tthanh2k6
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to supabase-rls-check

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • schema-guard-mcp

      yagaMI-Reverse
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Audits PostgreSQL/Supabase schemas for security issues like missing RLS, permissive policies, and sensitive data exposure during AI conversations.
      3
      MIT

    • se-check

      devhardesian
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to audit Supabase or Postgres databases for Row Level Security and multi-tenant isolation holes, reading tables, grants, policies and functions for static findings and optionally probing those policies inside a rolled-back transaction. It reports each hole with an explanation and a fix, so an agent can verify the migrations it just wrote before declaring them done.
      1
      MIT

    • sealmyapp

      toby7979
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding assistants to check whether an API key is safe to expose, audit Supabase Row Level Security, generate owner-based RLS policy templates, and run a builder-specific pre-launch security checklist. Runs locally over stdio with no network calls, telemetry, or file access.
      5
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools operate on completely different inputs: one validates/summarizes a local metadata export file, the other returns static documentation for a rule. There is no plausible way for an agent to confuse them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both names use the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (analyze_sql_export, explain_rule) with clear, specific nouns. No stylistic drift between the two.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is thin for a domain that includes running the check, enumerating rules, and interpreting results. It is defensible given a narrow scan-and-explain scope, but the surface feels minimal rather than well-scoped.

    Completeness2/5

    There is no way to list available rules (so explain_rule requires guessing rule names) and no tool to actually run or re-run check.sql, only to analyze a pre-existing export. Remediation is described in prose via explain_rule but never produced as SQL, leaving notable dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

    Resources