Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

create_provider

Create a new provider by defining its name and description using the UseGrant MCP Server, ensuring proper setup for provider management in the platform.

Instructions

Create a new provider

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYesThe description of the provider
nameYesThe name of the provider

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'create_provider' MCP tool. It takes input arguments, calls the UseGrant SDK's createProvider method, and returns the result as a JSON-formatted text content response.
    async (args) => {
      const provider = await usegrant.createProvider(args);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(provider, null, 2) }],
      };
    },
  • The input schema for the 'create_provider' tool, referencing the CreateProviderSchema from the UseGrant SDK.
    UgSchema.CreateProviderSchema.shape,
  • src/index.ts:33-43 (registration)
    The registration of the 'create_provider' tool on the MCP server, including name, description, schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'create_provider',
      'Create a new provider',
      UgSchema.CreateProviderSchema.shape,
      async (args) => {
        const provider = await usegrant.createProvider(args);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(provider, null, 2) }],
        };
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create a new provider' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is an idempotent operation, what happens on duplicate names, what the response contains, or any rate limits. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 extremely concise at just three words ('Create a new provider'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it earns full marks for conciseness.

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 this is a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'provider' is in this context, doesn't differentiate from similar creation tools, and provides no behavioral context about permissions, idempotency, or response format. For a tool that creates persistent resources, this level of documentation is inadequate.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both required parameters (name and description). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new provider' clearly states the action (create) and resource (provider), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling creation tools like create_client, create_tenant, or create_tenant_provider, leaving ambiguity about what specifically makes a 'provider' different from those other entities.

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. There are multiple sibling creation tools (create_client, create_tenant, create_tenant_provider, etc.), but the description doesn't explain what a 'provider' is or when one would create it instead of those other entities. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives are mentioned.

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