Centia MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

patchUser

Update existing sub-users by supplying name, email, and password, with optional custom properties and default user setting.

Instructions

Update existing sub-user(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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "patchUser"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	User name.
`email`	Yes	User email address.
`password`	Yes	User password. Minimum 8 characters with at least one uppercase letter and one number.
`properties`	No	Arbitrary custom properties for the user.
`default_user`	No	Whether this is the default user when no token is provided (public access).

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', lacking details on idempotency, error behavior, auth requirements, or partial vs. full updates. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise phrase. While more information would be helpful, it is not verbose and front-loads the key action. Minor deduction for the ambiguous 'sub-user(s)'.

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 annotations and output schema, the description should provide context about return values, partial update behavior, and preconditions. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the verb, and does not explain parameter interdependencies or constraints (e.g., password format). Baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Update existing sub-user(s)' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (sub-user(s)), distinguishing it from creation or deletion. However, the term 'sub-user' is somewhat ambiguous without context, preventing a perfect 5.

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 vs. alternatives like postUser or deleteUsers. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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