Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UseGrant MCP Server

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Tenant Provider

tenants_providers_create

Registers a new provider under a tenant with its URL, audience, fingerprints, and earliest allowed token issuance time to configure trust settings for tenant access tokens.

Instructions

Create Tenant 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": {
      "tenantId": "<tenantId>",
      "url": "<url>",
      "fingerprints": "<fingerprints>",
      "audience": "<audience>",
      "earliestIssuanceTimeAllowed": "<earliestIssuanceTimeAllowed>"
    },
    "name": "tenants_providers_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
audienceYes
tenantIdYesTenant ID
fingerprintsYes
earliestIssuanceTimeAllowedYesEarliest issuance time allowed in hours

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no mention of what is created, whether duplicates are rejected, or what permissions/tenant state are required.

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 one short sentence, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is essentially nothing to front-load because no information is provided.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A mutation tool with five required parameters, 40% schema coverage, no output schema, and a non-obvious domain concept has no supporting explanatory content. An agent could not confidently call this without guessing at the meaning of the required fields.

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 40%, and the description compensates for none of it. Five required parameters (url, audience, fingerprints, earliestIssuanceTimeAllowed, tenantId) have their semantics left almost entirely to the schema, leaving terms like "fingerprints" and "audience" unexplained.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings (providers_create, tenants_providers_get, tenants_providers_delete). An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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