Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

delete_tenant

Remove a tenant from the UseGrant MCP Server by specifying the tenant ID. This tool ensures efficient tenant management within the platform.

Instructions

Delete a tenant

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the tenant

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'delete_tenant' MCP tool. It calls usegrant.deleteTenant(id) to perform the deletion and returns a success message.
    async ({ id }) => {
      await usegrant.deleteTenant(id);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Tenant ${id} deleted` }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema for the 'delete_tenant' tool, specifying the 'id' parameter using UgSchema.TenantIdSchema.
    {
      id: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
    },
  • src/index.ts:246-258 (registration)
    Registration of the 'delete_tenant' tool with the MCP server, including name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'delete_tenant',
      'Delete a tenant',
      {
        id: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
      },
      async ({ id }) => {
        await usegrant.deleteTenant(id);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Tenant ${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 tenant' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletion), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 tenant', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. This is efficient for a simple tool, though it may be too brief for adequate completeness.

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 complexity of a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool safely and effectively.

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, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid tenant ID or where to find it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tenant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like delete_client or delete_domain, which follow the same pattern, so it lacks specific 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 ensuring the tenant exists (via get_tenant) or warn about irreversible deletion, nor does it reference related tools like list_tenants 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