Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Supabase: Disable extension

supabase_disable_extension
Destructive

Disable or drop a PostgreSQL extension on a Supabase site, optionally using cascade, to remove extension functionality and dependent objects.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Disable (drop) a PostgreSQL extension.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_disable_extension"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
siteYes
cascadeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds only the word "drop"; it says nothing about dependent objects being dropped with it, permission requirements, or that the operation cannot be undone.

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?

A single short sentence with the key information front-loaded and no padding beyond the bracketed [UNIFIED] tag. Conciseness is real, but it shades into under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive three-parameter operation with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what cascade does, what happens to dependent objects, or what a successful response looks like, before running an irreversible action.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description gives no meaning for site, name, or cascade. The cascade flag is especially consequential -- it determines whether dependent objects are dropped -- and is left entirely unexplained.

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?

"Disable (drop) a PostgreSQL extension" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical clarifies that disabling means dropping. It is clearly the inverse of supabase_enable_extension, though it never says so explicitly.

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 implies when to use it (removing an extension) but offers no explicit guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the natural alternative supabase_enable_extension. Nothing about irreversible consequences or who may run it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools