Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UseGrant MCP Server

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Add Domain to Provider

providers_domains_add

Adds a domain to a provider by provider ID so the domain can be linked to that provider in UseGrant.

Instructions

Add Domain to Provider

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>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "providers_domains_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
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 the mutation profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds nothing on top of that — it does not say what happens on duplicate domains, whether the domain lands in an unverified state, whether an ownership/DNS record is issued, or what the returned payload looks like.

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?

It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single phrase is a restatement of the title and carries no content an agent could act on. There is no structure to front-load because there is effectively nothing beyond the name.

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 non-idempotent write operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description omits the essentials: duplicate-handling behavior, post-add verification state, and the relationship to providers_domains_verify. The annotations carry the safety profile, but the operational picture remains incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: providerId carries a description, but the domain parameter has no prose description at all, only a regex pattern and length bounds. With low coverage the description is supposed to compensate, and it says nothing about accepted domain forms (no scheme, no 'www.' prefix) or where the providerId comes from.

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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this versus the verify or list siblings, no stated prerequisites (for example, that the provider must already exist), and no note on whether a newly added domain still needs verification. The agent is left to infer the entire workflow context.

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