Delete a file from a Supabase storage bucket by providing the bucket name and file path. Use for managing or cleaning up stored files.
Delete a file from a Supabase storage bucket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path to delete | |
| bucket | Yes | Storage bucket name |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' signals a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, what happens if the file or bucket does not exist, or whether the operation can be undone.
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, well sized for the operation. It is efficient, though stripped so far down that it omits useful behavioral 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 two-parameter delete with fully documented params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage, it should at least note irreversibility or error behavior, which it does not.
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 coverage is 100%, with both 'bucket' and 'path' documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond what the schema already supplies.
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 (file in a Supabase storage bucket), which cleanly separates it from supabase_upload_file and supabase_list_files. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the resource scope is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this over supabase_delete or supabase_delete (row) operations, no prerequisites, and no mention that the action is irreversible. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.