Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

create_tenant_provider

Generate a provider for a tenant by defining audience, URL, fingerprints, and issuance time constraints on the UseGrant MCP Server.

Instructions

Create a new provider for a tenant

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
audienceYesThe audience of the provider
earliestIssuanceTimeAllowedYesThe earliest issuance time allowed in hours
fingerprintsYes
tenantIdYesThe ID of the tenant
urlYesThe URL of the provider

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'create_tenant_provider' tool. It takes tenantId and payload, calls usegrant.createTenantProvider, and returns the result as JSON text content.
    async ({ tenantId, ...payload }) => {
      const provider = await usegrant.createTenantProvider(tenantId, payload);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(provider, null, 2) }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema for the 'create_tenant_provider' tool, combining tenantId schema with CreateTenantProviderSchema from the UseGrant SDK.
    {
      tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
      ...UgSchema.CreateTenantProviderSchema.shape,
    },
  • src/index.ts:274-287 (registration)
    Registration of the 'create_tenant_provider' MCP tool using server.tool, including name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'create_tenant_provider',
      'Create a new provider for a tenant',
      {
        tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
        ...UgSchema.CreateTenantProviderSchema.shape,
      },
      async ({ tenantId, ...payload }) => {
        const provider = await usegrant.createTenantProvider(tenantId, payload);
        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' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this level of complexity and gets straight to the point.

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 5 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'provider' in this context, what the creation entails, what happens after creation, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this write operation.

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 description provides no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With 80% schema description coverage (4 out of 5 parameters have descriptions), the schema does most of the heavy lifting. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the description adds no additional parameter semantics but the schema coverage is reasonably good.

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 provider for a tenant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from the sibling 'create_provider' tool, which appears to serve a similar function but potentially at a different scope or level.

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 like 'create_provider' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately between similar creation tools in the server.

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