Skip to main content
Glama

Supabase: Get bucket

supabase_get_bucket
Read-only

Retrieve detailed information about a specific storage bucket, including its settings and limits, to verify configuration and capacity constraints.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get detailed information about a specific bucket including settings and limits.

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_id": "<bucket_id>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_get_bucket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
bucket_idYes

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?

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. 'Including settings and limits' hints at what is returned, but it says nothing about permissions required, behavior when the bucket does not exist, or whether the lookup spans multiple sites.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the only noise is the '[UNIFIED]' prefix, which conveys nothing to an agent. Everything after that earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is close to adequate, and no output schema means return values need not be spelled out. However, with zero schema coverage on the parameters and an unexplained 'site' concept, an agent could still mis-invoke it.

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 the description carries the full burden for both required parameters and adds nothing: 'bucket_id' is never described (name vs. UUID) and 'site' — ambiguous given a multi-project toolset — is never explained. This is a clear gap the description fails to fill.

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 ('Get detailed information about a specific bucket') and scopes the content ('settings and limits'), which clearly separates it from the create/delete/update/empty bucket siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at a solid 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 stated prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as supabase_get_storage_stats or supabase_get_public_url. The agent must infer that this is the read path for bucket configuration from the verb alone.

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