Skip to main content
Glama
navig-run

NAVIG

Official
by navig-run
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Change Supabase

connector_supabase_act
Destructive

Change Supabase data via supported actions—reply, create, update, delete, archive, label, send, or move—by passing action_type, optional resource_id, and params. Unsupported actions are refused.

Instructions

Change data in Supabase: reply, create, update, delete, archive, label, send or move — whichever this provider supports. Pass resource_id for an existing item and params for the payload; returns success plus the affected resource, or success: false with the reason. An unsupported action is refused, never silently applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNoAction-specific payload, e.g. {to, subject, body} for send, {body} for reply, {add_labels, remove_labels} for label
action_typeYesWrite to perform. The provider must support it — a value outside its supported set is refused with success: false, not silently applied.
resource_idNoNative id of the item to change, when the action targets an existing item (reply, update, delete, archive, label, move). Omit it for create/send.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / action_type / description
      Previous value: -"Action to perform. Allowed values: reply, create, update, delete, archive, label, send, move"New value: +"Write to perform. The provider must support it — a value outside its supported set is refused with success: false, not silently applied."
    • addedInput schema / properties / action_type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "reply",
+  "create",
+  "update",
+  "delete",
+  "archive",
+  "label",
+  "send",
+  "move"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / params / description
      Previous value: -"Action-specific parameters (e.g. body, subject, labels)"New value: +"Action-specific payload, e.g. {to, subject, body} for send, {body} for reply, {add_labels, remove_labels} for label"
    • changedInput schema / properties / resource_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the resource to act on (if applicable)"New value: +"Native id of the item to change, when the action targets an existing item (reply, update, delete, archive, label, move). Omit it for create/send."
    • addedInput schema / properties / resource_id / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the return shape ('success plus the affected resource, or success: false with the reason') and a firm refusal contract ('never silently applied').

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The action list is long but it mirrors the enum, so it earns its space.

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

Completeness4/5

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

A destructive mutation tool with an enum, nested params and no output schema. The description covers return values and error semantics, which is exactly the gap left by the absence of an output schema. Only the mismatch between email-style actions (reply/send/archive) and a database provider is left unaddressed.

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 action_type, resource_id and params in depth. The description restates the resource_id/params split without adding syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Change data') and resource ('Supabase'), and enumerates the supported actions. The read counterpart connector_supabase_fetch is not named explicitly, but the 'change' framing against a sibling 'fetch' is reasonably distinguishishable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through 'Pass resource_id for an existing item and params for the payload' and 'whichever this provider supports', but there is no explicit when-to-use this vs connector_supabase_fetch, nor any prerequisite or exclusion statements.

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