Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

delete_provider

Remove a provider from the UseGrant MCP Server by specifying its unique ID. This tool ensures accurate management of provider records within the platform.

Instructions

Delete a provider

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the provider

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for 'delete_provider' tool that calls usegrant.deleteProvider(id) and returns a success message.
    async ({ id }) => {
      await usegrant.deleteProvider(id);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Provider ${id} deleted` }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema for the delete_provider tool, requiring an 'id' field validated by UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema.
    { id: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema },
  • src/index.ts:57-67 (registration)
    Registration of the 'delete_provider' MCP tool using server.tool(), including name, description, input schema, and handler.
    server.tool(
      'delete_provider',
      'Delete a provider',
      { id: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema },
      async ({ id }) => {
        await usegrant.deleteProvider(id);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Provider ${id} 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 'Delete a provider', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't add context such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting associated tenants or domains). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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, 'Delete a provider', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's complexity as a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like success/failure responses, error conditions, or confirmation requirements, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 the parameter 'id' documented as 'The ID of the provider'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics.

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 the resource ('a provider'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_client' or 'delete_tenant', which follow the same pattern, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing the provider ID or warn about irreversible deletion, nor does it reference related tools like 'get_provider' for verification or 'list_providers' for selection.

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