Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

create_tenant

Add a new tenant to the UseGrant MCP Server by specifying a name and description, enabling efficient management of tenant-specific configurations and resources.

Instructions

Create a new tenant

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'create_tenant' tool. It takes the payload, calls usegrant.createTenant(payload) from the UseGrant SDK, and returns the tenant object as a JSON-formatted text content response.
    async (payload) => {
      const tenant = await usegrant.createTenant(payload);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(tenant, null, 2) }],
      };
    },
  • src/index.ts:220-230 (registration)
    Registration of the 'create_tenant' MCP tool using server.tool(), including the tool name, description, input schema, and inline handler function.
    server.tool(
      'create_tenant',
      'Create a new tenant',
      UgSchema.CreateTenantSchema.shape,
      async (payload) => {
        const tenant = await usegrant.createTenant(payload);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(tenant, null, 2) }],
        };
      },
    );
  • The input schema for the 'create_tenant' tool, referencing UgSchema.CreateTenantSchema.shape from the imported UseGrant SDK schema module.
    UgSchema.CreateTenantSchema.shape,
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new tenant' which implies a write operation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response includes. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with a single sentence, 'Create a new tenant', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it lacks detail, it is structurally efficient and does not include redundant information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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, clearly documenting the 'name' and 'description' parameters with constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Create a new tenant' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not explain what a 'tenant' represents in this context or what resources are involved, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_client' or 'create_provider'.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as whether authentication is required, or specify scenarios where creating a tenant is appropriate compared to other creation tools like 'create_client' or 'create_provider'.

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