Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Centia MCP Server

Centia MCP Server

Official
by mapcentia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

patchSchema

Rename an existing schema by specifying the current schema name and the new name.

Instructions

Rename an existing schema.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "patchSchema"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaNoSchema name
nameYesNew schema name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.9

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or what happens to dependent objects. For a mutation operation, this is minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description consists of a single sentence with no wasted words. It is maximally concise while still conveying the core action.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, but the description lacks details about the rename operation's behavior (e.g., whether it's immediate, if old name is freed). Given no output schema, more context would be helpful. The description is minimally adequate.

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% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Rename an existing schema.' clearly states the specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from sibling patch tools that target different resources (e.g., patchTable, patchClient). The purpose is unambiguous and concise.

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 are many sibling patch tools, but the description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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