Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UseGrant MCP Server

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Domain

providers_domains_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a domain's details using its provider ID and domain ID to look up configuration and status within the UseGrant platform.

Instructions

Get Domain

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>",
      "domainId": "<domainId>"
    },
    "name": "providers_domains_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainIdYesDomain ID
providerIdYesProvider ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown IDs, whether verification status is included, or any other behavioral trait an agent would want.

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?

Two words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is nothing to be front-loaded because nothing is said. No structural information is conveyed.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what a 'domain' record contains and what a successful retrieval looks like. Instead it leaves the agent to infer everything from the tool name and the sibling list.

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% and both required path parameters (domainId, providerId) are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description itself contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling domain tools (list, add, delete, verify). No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are named.

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