Centia MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

postIndex

Create indexes on database tables to speed up lookups by maintaining ordered structures over selected columns. Choose from btree, brin, gin, gist, or hash methods.

Instructions

Create index(es).

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": "postIndex"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`schema`	Yes	Name of schema
`table`	Yes	Name of table
`requestBody`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.9May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description 'Create index(es)' lacks any behavioral disclosure beyond the basic action. It does not indicate idempotency, error behavior (e.g., if index already exists), or performance implications. No annotations are provided to compensate.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is overly terse (two words), which sacrifices necessary information for brevity. While it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place by providing value.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity of creating indexes (effects on performance, locking, etc.), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks mention of prerequisites, consequences, or operation scope, leaving the agent uninformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no meaning to the parameters; the input schema already describes schema, table, and requestBody fields. With schema description coverage at 67%, the description fails to compensate for the missing detail.

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 states the verb 'Create' and resource 'index(es)', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deleteIndex and getIndex by focusing on creation. However, it could be more specific about the context (e.g., 'in a PostgreSQL database schema/table').

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 postTable or when not to create indexes. There are no mentions of prerequisites, best practices, or exclusion criteria.

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