Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UseGrant MCP Server

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Verify Domain

providers_domains_verify

Verify a domain for a provider by submitting the provider ID and domain ID to confirm ownership and correct association.

Instructions

Verify 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_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainIdYesDomain 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 state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. But the description adds nothing about what verification does — whether it triggers an async DNS/ownership check, requires prior domain configuration, consumes a quota, or returns only an acknowledgement. That is a significant omission for a non-idempotent write action.

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, so nothing is wasted, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded context an agent could act on.

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 and a non-idempotent, non-read-only action, the description should explain the outcome or side effect of verification. It says nothing, so the agent must invoke blind — annotations and the fully documented parameters only partly compensate.

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 parameters (providerId, domainId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about how these identifiers scope or constrain the verification.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling tool. With providers_domains_get and providers_domains_add in the same family, the agent has no basis for choosing this one.

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