Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UseGrant MCP Server

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Tenant Provider Policy

tenants_providers_policies_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a tenant provider policy by tenant ID, tenant provider ID, and policy ID for access configuration review.

Instructions

Get Tenant Provider Policy

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>",
      "policyId": "<policyId>"
    },
    "name": "tenants_providers_policies_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyIdYesPolicy ID
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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on hierarchy requirements, not-found behavior, or what a policy record contains.

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?

There is nothing to trim, but that is because the description is under-specified rather than efficient. A single restated phrase provides no front-loaded value an agent can 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at least indicate what a policy object represents or the tenant/provider/policy nesting requirement. With annotations rich but the description empty of substance, an agent lacks the context to distinguish this call from adjacent reads.

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 all three path parameters (tenantId, tenantProviderId, policyId) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the naming convention that this requires a policy under a tenant provider, and that tenants_providers_policies_list is the alternative for enumeration.

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