Update specific rows in a Supabase table by providing filter conditions. Use table, data, and filter parameters to modify matching records.
Update rows in a Supabase table that match the filter conditions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Data to update | |
| table | Yes | Table name to update | |
| filter | Yes | Filter conditions to match rows to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about the destructive/mutating nature of the call, required permissions or RLS implications, whether an empty filter is allowed, or whether the operation is reversible. For a write tool this is a substantial gap.
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 naming the verb, resource, and filter condition with no filler. It is efficiently sized for the amount of content it actually conveys.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and untyped nested objects (data and filter use additionalProperties with no shape), the description should explain filter structure, expected return, and safety implications. None of that is present, leaving the definition thin relative to the tool's complexity.
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 table, data, and filter are already documented in the schema, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond restating the filter concept. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting; no extra syntax or format detail is provided for the free-form nested objects.
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 (update), resource (rows in a Supabase table), and scope (rows matching the filter conditions), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like supabase_insert, supabase_delete, or supabase_execute_sql, which would be the final step to a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives: an agent cannot tell from this text whether to prefer supabase_update over supabase_insert for upserts or over supabase_execute_sql for complex mutations. The only contextual cue is the implicit 'matching rows' filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.