Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

list_domains

Retrieve all domains associated with a provider using the specified provider ID to manage and organize domain data on the UseGrant MCP Server.

Instructions

List all domains for a provider

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerIdYesThe ID of the provider

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'list_domains' tool. It takes a providerId, calls usegrant.listDomains(providerId), and returns the JSON stringified domains in the tool response format.
    async ({ providerId }) => {
      const domains = await usegrant.listDomains(providerId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(domains, null, 2) }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema for the 'list_domains' tool, specifying that providerId must conform to UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema (likely a Zod schema).
    {
      providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema,
    },
  • src/index.ts:123-135 (registration)
    Registration of the 'list_domains' MCP tool using server.tool(), including name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'list_domains',
      'List all domains for a provider',
      {
        providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema,
      },
      async ({ providerId }) => {
        const domains = await usegrant.listDomains(providerId);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(domains, 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. While 'List all domains' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all domains for a provider'), making it immediately clear without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of domains. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a read operation with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 'providerId' clearly documented in the schema as 'The ID of the provider'. The description mentions 'for a provider', which aligns with but doesn't add meaningful detail beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List all domains') and the resource ('for a provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_domain' (singular retrieval) and 'add_domain'/'delete_domain' (mutations), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the text itself.

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 sibling tools like 'get_domain' (for retrieving a single domain) or 'verify_domain', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where listing domains is appropriate versus other operations.

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