Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

list_tenant_provider_policies

Retrieve all policies associated with a tenant provider by specifying tenant and provider IDs. Access policy details efficiently for management and oversight.

Instructions

List all policies for a tenant provider

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the tool logic by calling usegrant.listTenantProviderPolicies and returning the policies as JSON.
    async ({ tenantId, providerId }) => {
      const policies = await usegrant.listTenantProviderPolicies(tenantId, providerId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(policies, null, 2) }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema for the tool, defining tenantId and providerId using Zod schemas from UseGrant SDK.
    {
      tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
      providerId: UgSchema.TenantProviderIdSchema,
    },
  • src/index.ts:319-332 (registration)
    Registration of the 'list_tenant_provider_policies' tool with the MCP server, including name, description, schema, and handler.
    server.tool(
      'list_tenant_provider_policies',
      'List all policies for a tenant provider',
      {
        tenantId: UgSchema.TenantIdSchema,
        providerId: UgSchema.TenantProviderIdSchema,
      },
      async ({ tenantId, providerId }) => {
        const policies = await usegrant.listTenantProviderPolicies(tenantId, providerId);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(policies, 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 full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the tenant/provider doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters. It doesn't explain what 'policies' entail, the format of the returned list, or any error conditions. For a list operation in a management context, this lacks sufficient context for reliable agent use.

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 clear descriptions for both required parameters (tenantId and providerId). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the relationship between tenant and provider or how policies are scoped. 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 ('List all') and resource ('policies for a tenant provider'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'list_tenant_providers' or 'list_providers' by specifying what type of policies are being listed or their 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. With siblings like 'get_tenant_provider_policy' (singular) and 'list_tenant_providers', there's no indication of when this list operation is preferred or what prerequisites might exist (e.g., needing a specific tenant/provider).

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