Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

delete_tenant_provider

Remove a tenant provider by specifying tenant and provider IDs in the UseGrant MCP Server, ensuring precise management of tenant-provider relationships.

Instructions

Delete a provider for a tenant

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerIdYesThe ID of the tenant provider
tenantIdYesThe ID of the tenant

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for delete_tenant_provider tool that delegates to usegrant SDK method deleteTenantProvider(tenantId, providerId) and returns a success message.
    async ({ tenantId, providerId }) => {
      await usegrant.deleteTenantProvider(tenantId, providerId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Provider ${providerId} deleted` }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema for delete_tenant_provider tool, requiring tenantId and providerId using schemas from @usegrant/sdk/schema.
    {
      tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
      providerId: UgSchema.TenantProviderIdSchema,
    },
  • src/index.ts:304-317 (registration)
    Registration of the delete_tenant_provider tool with the MCP server using server.tool(), including name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'delete_tenant_provider',
      'Delete a provider for a tenant',
      {
        tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
        providerId: UgSchema.TenantProviderIdSchema,
      },
      async ({ tenantId, providerId }) => {
        await usegrant.deleteTenantProvider(tenantId, providerId);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Provider ${providerId} 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 action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, side effects, or what happens to associated resources. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 information about behavioral consequences, success/failure responses, and how it fits within the broader system (e.g., sibling tools). The agent must guess these critical aspects.

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 ('tenantId' and 'providerId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these IDs are needed for deletion, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 the resource ('a provider for a tenant'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_provider' or 'delete_tenant', leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provider must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'delete_tenant_provider_policy', leaving the agent to 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