UseGrant MCP Server
OfficialRelated Servers
Alternatives to UseGrant MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables management of Keycloak users and realms through a standardized interface, providing tools for user creation, deletion, role assignment, and group management.925 npm13MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides tools to manage Keycloak users and realms, allowing you to create and delete users, list available realms, and view users in specific realms.423 npm46MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA server that implements the Model Context Protocol, providing a standardized way to connect AI models to different data sources and tools.5 npm12MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that supports remote connections and authenticates users via GitHub OAuth, allowing them to access tools based on their GitHub identity.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for interacting with Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Office services through the Graph API.-
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceA production-grade Model Context Protocol (MCP) resource server with OAuth 2.1 authorization, provider-agnostic and supporting multiple MCP specification versions.18MIT
TDQS
Scored across 27 tools
The hierarchical resource paths make most tools clearly distinct, especially across providers, clients, domains, tenants, tenant providers, and policies. Some boundaries are still easy to confuse, such as provider clients' token creation versus tenant token validation, but descriptions provide enough context.
Tool names consistently use snake_case with a hierarchical resource path followed by a verb, such as providers_clients_list and tenants_providers_policies_create. Domain-specific verbs like add and verify are used appropriately without breaking the overall pattern.
The 27-tool surface is heavy for a single MCP server, but it is structured around CRUD operations for several nested resource types rather than arbitrary one-off tools. It is borderline appropriate for a multi-tenant provider/client/domain/policy domain, though still larger than ideal.
The server covers many core list/get/create/delete operations across providers, clients, domains, tenants, tenant providers, and policies. However, update operations are largely absent, and token lifecycle coverage is incomplete because there is token creation and validation but no token listing, revocation, or deletion.