Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UseGrant MCP Server

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Tenant Provider

tenants_providers_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves details for a specific provider configured for a tenant using the tenant ID and tenant provider ID.

Instructions

Get 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_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tenantIdYesTenant ID
tenantProviderIdYesTenant Provider ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond those annotations – no note on what fields are returned, whether a 404 is possible for a non-associated provider, or scope/tenant isolation behavior.

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?

Four words with zero waste but also zero information; brevity here is under-specification rather than concision. There is a valid minimal sentence available ("Fetch a provider associated with a tenant by tenantId and tenantProviderId") that would fit in the same space.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place to signal what a Tenant Provider object looks like or what happens if the provider is not attached to the tenant. Given a lookup tool in a dense sibling namespace, the definition leaves the agent to guess key distinctions.

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 both tenantId and tenantProviderId documented and required, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no extra semantics, which is the baseline-3 case for high-coverage schemas.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is stated. The agent must infer from the 25 sibling names that this fetches a provider that belongs to a specific tenant, versus the global providers_get. Nothing in the description resolves that ambiguity.

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