Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

MCP OAuth 2.1 Authorization Auditor

audit_mcp_oauth
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit MCP OAuth 2.1 authorization: validate RFC 9728 protected-resource-metadata, check RFC 8707 audience binding, and assess token-passthrough / confused-deputy risk. Use when a developer is securing an MCP server's authorization. Renders the interactive AINumbers tool as a widget; inputs are applied via the AIN Bridge and the tool runs client-side (zero PII, zero network). Output schema: call describe_tool("audit_mcp_oauth").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputsNoMap of tool input element IDs to values (see manifest input_schema). Applied via AIN Bridge prefill.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "findings": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "score": {
-      "type": "number"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "findings": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description adds key behavioral context: the tool renders an interactive widget, runs client-side, and guarantees zero PII and zero network. This materially informs an agent about side effects and security posture.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, and then behavioral details; every sentence earns its place. The note about calling describe_tool to obtain output schema is practical and avoids duplicating structured information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only audit tool with annotations and a single map parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and how to obtain the output schema. It does not describe the exact output format, but instructs agents to call describe_tool('audit_mcp_oauth'), which bridges that gap.

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?

The single parameter 'inputs' is already documented in the schema as a map of element IDs to values, with schema coverage at 100%. The description adds that inputs are applied via AIN Bridge, but this is more operational context than semantic parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Audit'), a specific resource ('MCP OAuth 2.1 authorization'), and enumerates concrete checks (RFC 9728 metadata, RFC 8707 audience binding, token-passthrough/confused-deputy risk). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like audit_mcp_tool_scope_revocation or validate_mcp_authorization_metadata.

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 description states a clear when-to-use: 'Use when a developer is securing an MCP server's authorization.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the stated scenario is specific enough for an agent to select this tool over related audit helpers.

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

All AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources