Centia MCP Server

Official

by mapcentia

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

postCommit

Export a database schema to a Git repository, commit with a custom message, and push the changes to the remote.

Instructions

Commit schema changes to Git and push to the remote repository.

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>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "postCommit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`schema`	Yes	Schema name to export and commit.
`repo`	Yes	Git repository URL (can include credentials).
`message`	Yes	The commit message.
`meta_query`	No	Only include meta entries that match this search query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.9May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as destructive potential, required permissions, or side effects like overwriting existing commits.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action, avoiding unnecessary words, though slightly more detail could be included without losing conciseness.

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?

The description is too minimal for a commit/push action; it lacks information on process, success/failure indications, and return values, especially given no output schema to supplement it.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool commits schema changes to Git and pushes to a remote repository, which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on individual schema elements like postTable or postSchema.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like postSql or postSchema, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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