Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

delete_client

Remove a client from a provider on the UseGrant MCP Server by specifying the client and provider IDs to manage access and relationships efficiently.

Instructions

Delete a client from a provider

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientIdYesThe ID of the client
providerIdYesThe ID of the provider

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that performs the tool logic: calls usegrant.deleteClient(providerId, clientId) and returns a success response with MCP content format.
    async ({ providerId, clientId }) => {
      await usegrant.deleteClient(providerId, clientId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Client ${clientId} deleted` }],
      };
    },
  • Input parameters schema using Zod schemas for providerId and clientId.
    {
      providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema,
      clientId: UgSchema.ClientIdSchema,
    },
  • src/index.ts:108-121 (registration)
    The server.tool call that registers the 'delete_client' tool with name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'delete_client',
      'Delete a client from a provider',
      {
        providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema,
        clientId: UgSchema.ClientIdSchema,
      },
      async ({ providerId, clientId }) => {
        await usegrant.deleteClient(providerId, clientId);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Client ${clientId} deleted` }],
        };
      },
    );
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. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permanence, side effects), usage context, and response expectations. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for safe and effective tool invocation in a complex environment with many sibling tools.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters are documented with clear descriptions), the baseline score of 3 applies. The description doesn't compensate with additional context about parameter relationships or usage.

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 ('Delete') and target ('a client from a provider'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_provider' or 'delete_tenant' by specifying the client resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for removing clients, there's no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to related tools like 'delete_tenant_provider' or 'get_client' for verification. The agent must infer usage from context 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