Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UseGrant MCP Server

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete Tenant Provider

tenants_providers_delete
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a provider assignment from a specific tenant using tenant ID and tenant provider ID, removing that provider’s access or configuration for the tenant.

Instructions

Delete 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>",
      "tenantProviderId": "<tenantProviderId>"
    },
    "name": "tenants_providers_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tenantIdYesTenant ID
tenantProviderIdYesTenant Provider 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 readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing: it does not state whether deleting a tenant provider revokes access, cascades to policies, or is reversible, which are the exact behavioral facts an agent would need beyond the annotations.

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 description is a single tautological fragment that duplicates the title. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — the one sentence earns no place.

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, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what is removed and any side effects. With annotations only covering the generic destructive flag, critical context about cascading effects on policies/domains is missing.

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 only two clearly named path parameters (tenantId, tenantProviderId). Per the baseline rule, the schema does the heavy lifting, so a 3 is appropriate even though the description contributes no 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like tenants_providers_get or tenants_delete. An agent must infer everything from the tool 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