Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Supabase Server

MCP Supabase Server

by cloud9-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

supabase_list_files

List files in a Supabase storage bucket, optionally filtered by path prefix and paginated with limit/offset.

Instructions

List files in a Supabase storage bucket with optional path filtering.

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": {
      "bucket": "<bucket>"
    },
    "name": "supabase_list_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoPath prefix to filter files
limitNoMaximum number of files to return
bucketYesStorage bucket name
offsetNoNumber of files to skip

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say the operation is read-only, whether it requires auth, how pagination via limit/offset behaves, or what a listing returns. 'Optional path filtering' merely restates a schema field.

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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though terse to the point of omitting behavioral context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at return shape, ordering, or pagination semantics, but it omits them. It is minimally adequate for a simple list tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and bounds. The description's mention of path filtering adds no syntax or value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List files in a Supabase storage bucket'), which cleanly distinguishes it from supabase_list_buckets and supabase_list_tables. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as supabase_query or supabase_list_buckets, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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