Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Supabase: Move file

supabase_move_file
Destructive

Move or rename a file within the same Supabase storage bucket by specifying the site, bucket, source path, and destination path.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Move or rename a file within the same bucket.

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>",
      "from_path": "<from_path>",
      "to_path": "<to_path>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_move_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
bucketYes
to_pathYes
from_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the same-bucket limitation, but is silent on critical mutation behavior such as whether an existing to_path is overwritten, whether the source is removed on failure, or required permissions.

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 wasted clause; the only blemish is the opaque "[UNIFIED]" tag that conveys nothing to an agent.

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 a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with four undocumented required parameters and no output schema, one short sentence is not enough. Overwrite semantics, failure behavior and the meaning of site/bucket are all left to guesswork.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for four required parameters, so the description carries the burden. It does clarify that from_path and to_path operate within a single bucket (implying the same bucket parameter governs both endpoints), though site and bucket themselves remain 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?

States a specific verb (move/rename) and resource (file) plus a scoping constraint (within the same bucket), which is enough to separate it from upload/download/delete siblings. The unexplained "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds noise but doesn't obscure the core action.

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 "within the same bucket" clause implicitly tells the agent this won't work across buckets, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer move vs re-upload/delete or what prerequisites exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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