Centia MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getTable

Retrieve table metadata including columns, indexes, and constraints from a specified schema. Optionally filter by table name or return only table names.

Instructions

Get table(s).

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": {
      "schema": "<schema>"
    },
    "name": "getTable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`schema`	Yes	Schema name
`table`	No	Table name
`namesOnly`	No	Return only table names (omit columns, indexes, constraints, and other details).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.9May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this tool retrieves table metadata (columns, indexes, constraints) or that namesOnly parameter controls detail level. No safety or authorization cues are given.

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 (4 words), but this is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and multiple siblings. It prioritizes brevity over completeness, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 and the complexity implied by the namesOnly parameter (which toggles detailed output), the description fails to clarify what 'table(s)' entails. It does not explain behavior for omitted parameters or return structure.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Get table(s)' is a clear verb+resource but restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like getSchema or getColumn, resulting in a tautology that provides no additional context.

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. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where siblings would be more appropriate.

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