Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

delete_domain

Remove a domain from a provider by specifying the domain and provider IDs using this tool on the UseGrant MCP Server.

Instructions

Delete a domain from a provider

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainIdYesThe ID of the domain
providerIdYesThe ID of the provider

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'delete_domain' tool. Destructures providerId and domainId from args, calls usegrant.deleteDomain(providerId, domainId), and returns a text content confirming deletion.
    async ({ providerId, domainId }) => {
      await usegrant.deleteDomain(providerId, domainId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Domain ${domainId} deleted` }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema for the 'delete_domain' tool, specifying providerId (UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema) and domainId (UgSchema.DomainIdSchema) for validation.
    {
      providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema,
      domainId: UgSchema.DomainIdSchema,
    },
  • src/index.ts:167-180 (registration)
    Registration of the 'delete_domain' tool using server.tool(), including name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'delete_domain',
      'Delete a domain from a provider',
      {
        providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema,
        domainId: UgSchema.DomainIdSchema,
      },
      async ({ providerId, domainId }) => {
        await usegrant.deleteDomain(providerId, domainId);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Domain ${domainId} 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 tool performs a deletion, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or returns confirmation data. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Delete'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as confirmation of deletion, error conditions (e.g., what happens if the domain doesn't exist), or behavioral details (e.g., irreversible action). The agent must guess these aspects, which is inadequate for a tool that permanently removes resources.

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%, with both parameters ('domainId' and 'providerId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as where to find these IDs or their format. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation solely from the schema.

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 resource ('a domain from a provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_domain' or 'list_domains' by specifying the destructive operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_tenant' or 'delete_provider', which target different resources.

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., whether the domain must exist or be in a specific state), consequences (e.g., what happens to associated data), or when to choose other tools like 'verify_domain' first. The agent must infer usage from the tool name 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