Skip to main content
Glama

Supabase: Download file

supabase_download_file
Read-only

Download a file from Supabase storage and return its contents as base64-encoded data by specifying the site, bucket, and path.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Download a file from storage. Returns base64 encoded content.

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>",
      "bucket": "<bucket>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_download_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
siteYes
bucketYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a download, and the description usefully adds the return encoding (base64), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not disclose size limits, whether large files are truncated, binary/path handling, or authentication requirements, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return format; nothing is padded. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is tag noise that does not help an agent decide anything.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only tool the description covers the action and the return encoding, which is the main thing missing from the absent output schema. However, with zero parameter documentation across three required parameters, an agent still cannot tell what site or path format to supply.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all three parameters (site, bucket, path) are undocumented in structured data, and the description adds no meaning for any of them — not even that path is relative to the given bucket on the given site. The only implicit signal is that bucket and path refer to storage locations.

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?

"Download a file from storage" names a specific verb and resource, and the verb alone distinguishes it from siblings like supabase_upload_file, supabase_move_file, and supabase_delete_files. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives for retrieving file content. The only cue is the implied reading that downloading is the inverse of the sibling upload/move/delete operations.

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