Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UseGrant MCP Server

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List Tenant Provider Policies

tenants_providers_policies_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List policies for a specific tenant provider by providing tenantId and tenantProviderId, enabling you to review access rules and configurations.

Instructions

List Tenant Provider Policies

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_policies_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tenantIdYesTenant ID
tenantProviderIdYesTenant Provider ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. However, it adds nothing beyond the title — no mention of what policies are returned, ordering, or whether results are scoped to the given provider.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and has no filler, but it is pure tautology of the title, so it does not earn its place as a distinct description.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., a collection of policy objects) and any pagination or ordering behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer the response shape.

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%, so both path parameters (tenantId, tenantProviderId) are documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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, when to use a sibling such as tenants_providers_get or tenants_providers_list, or what prerequisites (the required tenantId and tenantProviderId) mean semantically.

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