Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Supabase: Update user

supabase_update_user
Destructive

Update Supabase user details such as email, password, phone, metadata, or ban status. Modify account credentials and profile data by user ID to keep authentication records current.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Update user details including email, password, phone, metadata, or ban status.

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>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
emailNo
phoneNo
user_idYes
passwordNo
app_metadataNo
email_confirmNo
phone_confirmNo
user_metadataNo

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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing behavioral: it does not say whether metadata is merged or replaced, whether password changes invalidate sessions, whether fields omitted from the call are cleared, or that changes are irreversible. For a destructive 9-parameter mutation tool, that is a substantive gap.

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; it is well-sized for what it attempts. The brevity is appropriate structurally even though the content is thin.

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 mutation tool with nine undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, one sentence is far from sufficient. Critical call-correctness information—confirm flags, metadata merge semantics, the unrecognized "ban status" reference—is missing.

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 of explaining nine parameters. It names email, password, phone, and metadata but says nothing about site, user_id, email_confirm, phone_confirm, or the app_metadata versus user_metadata distinction. Worse, "ban status" is not a parameter in the schema at all, which can mislead an agent into expecting a field that does not exist.

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?

The description uses a clear verb+resource ("Update user details") and enumerates the updatable fields, so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as supabase_ban_user, supabase_unban_user, or supabase_create_user, and its mention of "ban status" actually overlaps ambiguously with the dedicated ban tools.

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 versus supabase_ban_user/unban_user, get_user, or create_user, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the general-purpose mutation path for existing users.

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