Staticbot MCP server

get_clean_target_plan

Read-only

Inspect the live cleanup plan for a migration target before approving destructive actions. Get availability, confirmation project ref, and per-scope deletion counts for database, storage, and project.

Instructions

Inspect a destructive target cleanup BEFORE asking the user to authorize it. Always call this immediately before presenting cleanup, and never rely on the targetConflictReport from an earlier get_migration: that is a snapshot taken at discovery, while this is the current state of the target. Returns available (cleanup is only possible before execution starts, and only for Supabase Cloud targets) with unavailableReason when it is not, the exact confirmationProjectRef the user must approve, countsAvailable plus live per-scope rows describing what each of DATABASE, STORAGE and PROJECT would remove, and the cleanupEndpoint. Present the rows and the project ref verbatim, get explicit approval for one exact scope, then pass that ref to clean_migration_target unchanged. If available is false, tell the user the reason — do not call clean_migration_target to find out.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Migration ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Parsed JSON response from the Staticbot public API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.1Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavior: availability is limited to Supabase Cloud and pre-execution, the state is live (not a snapshot), and the exact workflow for presenting rows and project ref and passing to clean_migration_target. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is long but every sentence carries essential operational information: call timing, live/snapshot distinction, return field meanings, and the authorization hand-off. It is dense but not wasteful; the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even with an output schema present, the description adds the meaning of `available`, the per-scope rows, the required approval workflow, and the safeguard around clean_migration_target. For a tool with this much behavioral nuance, all context an agent needs to invoke it correctly is covered.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is already fully described in the schema ('Migration ID') with 100% coverage. The description does not add further parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('destructive target cleanup') and explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_migration's snapshot and clean_migration_target. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and why it exists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('Always call this immediately before presenting cleanup'), warns against relying on the earlier get_migration targetConflictReport, and tells the agent to not call clean_migration_target when available is false. This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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

Deploy Server