Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Centia MCP Server

Centia MCP Server

Official
by mapcentia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

patchMetaData

Update database relation metadata including titles, descriptions, grouping, sorting, tags, and per-column display names and queryability, without altering the physical schema.

Instructions

Update 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": "patchMetaData"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
relationsNoRelation metadata provides supplementary information about database relations. Metadata is stored outside the physical schema and does not change table structure or constraints. It is used by clients such as UI applications, query builders, and access layers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.9

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies mutation but does not specify if the update is partial (patch semantics) or complete replacement, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or idempotency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks important details that would justify its brevity. It is front-loaded but could be more informative without being verbose.

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 complex nested input schema, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or partial update semantics.

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% with detailed documentation for the single 'relations' parameter. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Update relation metadata', which specifies the verb and resource. Among sibling tools with 'patch' prefixes, this distinguishes metadata updates from other entities. However, it does not elaborate on what metadata includes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 like patchTable or other patch tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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