Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UseGrant MCP Server

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete Client

providers_clients_delete
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a specific client from a provider using the provider ID and client ID, removing that client record from the UseGrant platform.

Instructions

Delete Client

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "providerId": "<providerId>",
      "clientId": "<clientId>"
    },
    "name": "providers_clients_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientIdYesClient ID
providerIdYesProvider ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't state irreversibility, cascade effects (e.g., whether tokens tied to the client are revoked), or required permissions.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — two words that convey no information beyond the tool name. There is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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, irreversible mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: no confirmation of what gets deleted, no confirmation of return behavior, and no warning about cascading effects on related resources. Annotations alone do not cover these.

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 clientId and providerId documented and marked as path parameters, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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

Purpose2/5

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

Tautological: description restates name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no warnings despite it being a destructive operation. With 25+ siblings including providers_delete and tenants_providers_delete, routing guidance is essential and entirely absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools