Centia MCP Server

Official

by mapcentia

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

patchClient

Update an existing OAuth client's settings including name, redirect URIs, and authentication requirements.

Instructions

Update existing OAuth client(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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "patchClient"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Client id.
`name`	No	Client display name.
`homepage`	No	Homepage or web app URL that starts the code flow.
`description`	No	Longer description to identify the client.
`redirect_uri`	No	Allowed redirect URIs for this client.
`public`	No	Public clients do not require a secret.
`confirm`	No	Require user confirmation before granting access.
`two_factor`	No	Require two-factor authentication for login.
`allow_signup`	No	Allow users to sign up in the web dialog.
`social_signup`	No	Allow social login during signup.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.9May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates are partial or full, error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Merely states 'Update existing OAuth client(s)' without further context.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Could benefit from slightly more detail, but remains concise and directly communicates the core action.

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?

For a tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how partial updates work, leaving significant gaps.

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% with descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing OAuth client(s)'). It is distinct from sibling tools like deleteClient or getClient. Minor ambiguity with 'client(s)' potentially suggesting multiple clients, but the schema requires a single 'id'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like postClient (create) or deleteClient. No context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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