Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

delete_tenant_provider_policy

Remove a tenant provider policy by specifying tenant ID, provider ID, and policy ID to manage access and permissions effectively.

Instructions

Delete a policy for a tenant provider

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the tool logic by calling the UseGrant SDK's deleteTenantProviderPolicy method and returning a success response.
    async ({ tenantId, providerId, policyId }) => {
      await usegrant.deleteTenantProviderPolicy(tenantId, providerId, policyId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Policy ${policyId} deleted` }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema definition for the tool parameters using Zod schemas from the UseGrant SDK.
    {
      tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
      providerId: UgSchema.TenantProviderIdSchema,
      policyId: UgSchema.TenantProviderPolicyIdSchema,
    },
  • src/index.ts:366-380 (registration)
    Registration of the 'delete_tenant_provider_policy' tool on the MCP server using server.tool, including description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'delete_tenant_provider_policy',
      'Delete a policy for a tenant provider',
      {
        tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
        providerId: UgSchema.TenantProviderIdSchema,
        policyId: UgSchema.TenantProviderPolicyIdSchema,
      },
      async ({ tenantId, providerId, policyId }) => {
        await usegrant.deleteTenantProviderPolicy(tenantId, providerId, policyId);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Policy ${policyId} deleted` }],
        };
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward deletion operation and gets directly to the point.

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 insufficient. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or error conditions, nor does it explain what happens after deletion or how to verify success. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the missing operational context.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

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 policy for a tenant provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar deletion tools like 'delete_tenant_provider' or 'delete_provider', which would require more specificity to earn a 5.

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. With sibling tools like 'delete_tenant_provider' and 'delete_provider' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this deletion operation from those, nor any prerequisites or contextual constraints mentioned.

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