Skip to main content
Glama

Create oauth client

create_oauth_client

Register a new OAuth2 client so a third-party app can authenticate users via 'Login with Kangram'. Returns the client_id and a client_secret shown ONCE — store it securely. Owner-only.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "redirect_uris": "<redirect_uris>"
    },
    "name": "create_oauth_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesHuman-readable client application name.
scopesNoScopes the client is allowed to request. Defaults to ['profile'].
redirect_urisYesAllowed redirect URIs (exact match, https required; http only on localhost). No wildcards.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds the details that actually matter: the client_secret is returned and shown ONCE, must be stored securely, and the operation is restricted to owners. That is real behavioral value beyond the annotation set.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero filler, with the purpose and the one-time secret warning both front-loaded before the access restriction.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schema, the description names the returned fields (client_id, client_secret) and their one-time nature, and the owner-only constraint closes the remaining gap. An agent has everything needed to call it and handle the response safely.

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 the schema already explains name, scopes with defaults, and redirect_uri constraints (https, no wildcards). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register a new OAuth2 client') plus the concrete outcome ('third-party app can authenticate users via Login with Kangram'), which clearly separates it from list_oauth_clients and revoke_oauth_client.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The framing 'so a third-party app can authenticate users' tells an agent exactly when this tool applies, and 'Owner-only' states a precondition. It stops short of naming the sibling tools or the when-not case (e.g., use update/revoke for existing clients), so it lands just below the top.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources