Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

create_client

Generate a new client for a provider by specifying client name, provider ID, and audience. Facilitates client management in the UseGrant MCP Server.

Instructions

Create a new client for a provider

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
audienceYesThe audience of the client
nameYesThe name of the client
providerIdYesThe ID of the provider

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the create_client tool that invokes the UseGrant SDK's createClient method, formats the client data as JSON, and returns it in the MCP response format.
    async ({ providerId, ...payload }) => {
      const client = await usegrant.createClient(providerId, payload);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(client, null, 2) }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema definition for the create_client tool, requiring providerId and spreading fields from UgSchema.CreateClientSchema.
    { providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema, ...UgSchema.CreateClientSchema.shape },
  • src/index.ts:81-91 (registration)
    Registration of the 'create_client' MCP tool using server.tool(), including name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'create_client',
      'Create a new client for a provider',
      { providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema, ...UgSchema.CreateClientSchema.shape },
      async ({ providerId, ...payload }) => {
        const client = await usegrant.createClient(providerId, payload);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(client, null, 2) }],
        };
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'client' represents in this system, what happens after creation, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. The agent must guess at the broader context despite having rich sibling tools that suggest this is part of a provider/client management system.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with their constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'audience' means in context, how 'providerId' relates to other tools, or provide examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new client for a provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_client' or 'list_clients' by specifying creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_provider' or 'create_access_token' beyond mentioning 'client' specifically.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing provider), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar creation tools like 'create_provider' or 'create_tenant'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/usegranthq/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server