Centia MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

postUser

Create new sub-user accounts for API access under a super-user, specifying name, email, and password with optional custom properties.

Instructions

Create new 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": {
      "requestBody": "<requestBody>"
    },
    "name": "postUser"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requestBody`	Yes

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Create new sub-user(s).' It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description fails to add value beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately concise, but could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 is incomplete. It does not mention that the tool can create multiple users via an array input, nor does it describe the response format. The sibling tools list is large, and more context about when to use this specific tool could improve completeness.

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 input schema includes detailed descriptions for each parameter (name, email, password, etc.), so the schema coverage is high despite the context signal indicating 0% (likely a metric issue). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 specifies the action 'Create' and the resource 'sub-user(s)', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deleteUsers' and 'patchUser' as a creation operation. However, it does not explicitly mention the context of being under a super-user, which is clarified in the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for creating sub-users, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are no exclusion criteria or prerequisites stated, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool's name and schema.

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