Centia MCP Server

Official

by mapcentia

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

postTable

Create tables in a database schema, defining columns, indexes, constraints, and comments.

Instructions

Create table(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": {
      "schema": "<schema>",
      "requestBody": "<requestBody>"
    },
    "name": "postTable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`schema`	Yes	Schema name
`requestBody`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.9May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create table(s)' without mentioning effects like irreversibility, permissions needed, or error conditions (e.g., if table already exists). This is insufficient.

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 very short (one line) but lacks structure and detailed information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, missing key details that would help an agent.

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 of creating tables with columns, indexes, and constraints, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (no output schema) or error scenarios, leaving the agent without essential 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?

The schema provides moderate coverage (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Create table(s)' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (table). It distinguishes from sibling tools like patchTable or deleteTable. However, it could be more specific about the ability to create multiple tables in one call.

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 (e.g., patchTable for modifications) or prerequisites (e.g., schema must exist). The description is silent on usage context.

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