Aliyun RDS Supabase MCP Server

Official

by aliyun

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

update_auth_user

Updates user fields like email, password, role, or metadata via Supabase Admin API. Requires service role key.

Instructions

Updates fields for a user using Supabase Admin API. Requires service role key.

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_auth_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	New role.
`email`	No	New email address.
`user_id`	Yes	The UUID of the user to update.
`password`	No	New plain text password (min 6 chars). WARNING: Insecure.
`app_metadata`	No	New app metadata (will overwrite existing).
`user_metadata`	No	New user metadata (will overwrite existing).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.10Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., email confirmation, password logout) but only states 'Updates fields'. It does not warn that metadata overwrites existing values, though the schema notes it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with two sentences, no filler or extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action and the requirement.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or important context like confirmation emails or password invalidation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented there. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meriting a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states it updates a user via the Supabase Admin API, distinguishing it from create/delete/get siblings. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, relying on the schema for details.

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?

The description mentions the requirement for a service role key but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_auth_user or delete_auth_user. No explicit when-not-to-use or criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.