Centia MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

postSql

Execute SQL statements (SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, MERGE) with parameter binding and output in JSON, CSV, GeoJSON, or spatial formats.

Instructions

Execute SQL statements.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "postSql"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	SQL statement to run. Allowed: SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, MERGE. Not allowed: DDL, transaction control.
`params`	No	Parameters for the statement. For SELECT, only one parameter set is allowed.
`type_hints`	No	Type hints for JSON-encoded parameters that are not JSON/JSONB in the database.
`type_formats`	No	Formatting rules for typed parameters, e.g. date formats.
`output_format`	No	Output format. Supported: json, geojson, csv, ccsv, ndjson, excel, or ogr/<format> (e.g. ogr/ESRI Shape). ccsv and ndjson are streamed.	json
`srs`	No	EPSG code for the spatial reference system used for PostGIS geometry output.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.9May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral traits. It fails to disclose safety, error handling, or destructive potential beyond the schema's allowed statement list.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It could include more useful information without being verbose.

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 complexity (6 parameters, SQL execution, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error handling, and usage context.

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 parameter descriptions already provide meaning. The tool description adds no additional value, meeting the baseline 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 'Execute SQL statements' clearly identifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools that target specific entities like tables or columns.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The allowed SQL types are detailed in the parameter description but not the tool description, missing context for selection.

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