Centia MCP Server

Official

by mapcentia

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

patchPrivileges

Modify privilege levels for sub-users on a database table, granting read, write, or no access.

Instructions

Update privileges.

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>",
      "table": "<table>",
      "requestBody": "<requestBody>"
    },
    "name": "patchPrivileges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`schema`	Yes	Schema name
`table`	Yes	Table name
`requestBody`	Yes

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?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' implying mutation, but no details on idempotency, partial updates, or consequences 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it may be too sparse for completeness, but for conciseness it scores well.

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 tool has 3 required parameters including a complex requestBody, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the effect, allowed privilege levels, or response format.

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 provides descriptions for 2 of 3 parameters (schema, table) and the requestBody has inline descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update privileges.' is vague and does not specify what entity or scope is being updated. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like patchClient or patchColumn, which also use 'patch' verb.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, 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.