Centia MCP Server

Official

by mapcentia

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

getMetaData

Retrieve metadata for database relations by providing a schema-qualified name, schema name, or tag.

Instructions

Get relation metadata

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "getMetaData"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No	Schema-qualified relation name, schema name, or tag (tag:name). Comma-separated values are supported.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.9May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get relation metadata' without mentioning side effects, auth requirements, or that it is read-only. The agent gains little behavioral understanding.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (two words), which is concise but fails to provide necessary detail. It does not earn its place as it omits critical context about what metadata is retrieved.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema, the description should explain what the metadata includes (e.g., columns, types, constraints). It does not, leaving the agent underinformed about the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema describes the 'query' parameter well. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get relation metadata' conveys a verb and resource, but 'relation metadata' is vague and does not differentiate from other get* tools like getTable, getSchema, etc. It lacks specificity about what metadata is returned.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for getting specific objects (getColumn, getIndex, etc.), the description offers no contextual differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.