Skip to main content
Glama

Supabase: Drop table

supabase_drop_table
Destructive

Drops a table from a Supabase database and permanently removes its data; supports schema and cascade options. Use only when irreversible deletion is intended.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Drop (delete) a database table. Warning: This is irreversible.

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_drop_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
siteYes
schemaNopublic
cascadeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'irreversible' warning largely restates the danger. It does add the explicit permanence framing, but says nothing about dependency handling, whether a cascade will silently remove dependent objects, or what happens on failure.

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 the warning. The '[UNIFIED]' tag is low-value token noise, but otherwise nothing is padded.

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 an irreversible four-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from it whether 'cascade' drops dependent objects or which schema/site scope applies, which is exactly what it needs before calling.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never mentions 'schema' (default public) or 'cascade' (default false), even though cascade materially changes the blast radius of an irreversible operation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Drop (delete) a database table'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like supabase_drop_column or supabase_delete_rows. It does not explicitly name when a sibling would be preferred, so it falls short of 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 guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (permissions, ownership, dependencies), or which sibling to reach for instead. The only usage-adjacent content is the irreversibility warning, which is a caution rather than routing guidance.

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