Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

get_tenant_provider

Retrieve provider details for a specific tenant on the UseGrant MCP Server by submitting tenantId and providerId to ensure accurate tenant-provider association and access management.

Instructions

Get a provider for a tenant

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic: fetches the tenant provider via UseGrant SDK and returns JSON response.
    async ({ tenantId, providerId }) => {
      const provider = await usegrant.getTenantProvider(tenantId, providerId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(provider, null, 2) }],
      };
    },
  • Input parameters schema using Zod schemas from UseGrant SDK for tenantId and providerId.
    {
      tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
      providerId: UgSchema.TenantProviderIdSchema,
    },
  • src/index.ts:289-302 (registration)
    MCP server tool registration including name, description, schema, and inline handler.
    server.tool(
      'get_tenant_provider',
      'Get a provider for a tenant',
      {
        tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
        providerId: UgSchema.TenantProviderIdSchema,
      },
      async ({ tenantId, providerId }) => {
        const provider = await usegrant.getTenantProvider(tenantId, providerId);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(provider, null, 2) }],
        };
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without detailing what 'Get' entails—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, what data is returned, error conditions, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with minimal detail, which could be improved by adding more context without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'provider' means, what data is returned, or how this differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it 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 clear documentation for 'providerId' and 'tenantId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get a provider for a tenant' states a basic purpose with a verb ('Get') and resource ('provider for a tenant'), but it's vague about what 'provider' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_provider' or 'list_tenant_providers'. It lacks specificity about what type of provider or what information is retrieved.

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. With siblings like 'get_provider' and 'list_tenant_providers', the description doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving a specific provider linked to a tenant, making it unclear when to choose this over other tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are 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