Delete rows from a Supabase table matching filter conditions, allowing targeted removal of records via the MCP Supabase Server.
Delete rows from a Supabase table that match the filter conditions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | Table name to delete from | |
| filter | Yes | Filter conditions to match rows to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutation via 'Delete', but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions/RLS behavior, cascading effects on related rows, or whether an empty/loose filter can widen the deletion scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and filter-syntax context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. The filter parameter is an open object (additionalProperties) whose expected condition format is documented nowhere, and no return/affected-row information is given.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'table' and 'filter' are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates them. It adds no syntax or format detail for the free-form filter object, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (rows from a Supabase table) with the scoping condition (matching filter conditions). It implicitly separates itself from supabase_delete_file by specifying 'rows from a table', but it never explicitly contrasts with supabase_update or supabase_query, so the differentiation is only partial.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus supabase_update, supabase_execute_sql, or supabase_delete_file. There is no warning that this is irreversible or any precondition for running it, despite being the most destructive tool in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.