Skip to main content
Glama

secure-flows

by io.github.michal-lefler

Build secureFlows redirect-logout URL

secureflows_build_logout_url

Builds a correct redirect-logout URL and refuses to build one that violates the two documented logout anti-patterns: a redirect_uri pointing at /callback (SPA callback handlers treat the tokenless return as a failed login and loop), and a redirect_uri that itself embeds session_token (silently renews the old session instead of signing out).

The result always instructs top-level navigation, never fetch/XHR — cross-site fetch() to this endpoint gets a 200 but browsers silently ignore its Clear-Site-Data header on cross-site responses, so the hosted-login cookie survives and the user silently re-authenticates on the next login redirect. This tool never builds a revoke request: revoke permanently destroys the user's data and must only run on an explicit "delete my account" action, never on ordinary sign-out.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originNosecureFlows origin — always https://www.secure-flows.com in productionhttps://www.secure-flows.com
sessionTokenYesThe current sessionToken to invalidate.
postLogoutRedirectUriYesWhere the browser lands after logout completes — allowlisted, must NOT be /callback, and must NOT itself contain session_token.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two anti-patterns it refuses, explains the silent re-authentication risk, and states that it always instructs top-level navigation rather than fetch/XHR. This is extensive, security-relevant transparency with no contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then layers constraints with clear causal reasoning. It is lengthy but every sentence carries security-critical information, with no fluff or repetition. The structure flows logically from purpose to exclusions to behavioral requirements.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and while the description explains the navigation behavior of the result, it does not explicitly state that the output is a URL string. Given the security-critical nature, the description covers the key constraints and exclusions comprehensively, but an explicit statement of the return format would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a descriptive explanation—postLogoutRedirectUri even includes the anti-pattern constraints. The tool description adds rationale behind those constraints but does not introduce new syntax or formats. Given the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds context but not new parameter-level information.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Builds a correct redirect-logout URL') and explicitly distinguishes itself from revoke by stating 'This tool never builds a revoke request.' It also differentiates from a login builder by focusing on logout anti-patterns, making its purpose unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool (never for revoke, which is reserved for 'delete my account') and implies use for ordinary sign-out. It also specifies the top-level navigation requirement. However, it does not name alternative logout tools like post_auth_logout or get_auth_logout, leaving minor ambiguity about choosing among them.

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

All secure-flows toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct session/auth operations, and the descriptions clearly separate browser redirects from API endpoints. The main ambiguity is between get_sessions and get_sessions_my (payload vs. list) and the two logout variants, though the docs disambiguate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

API tools consistently use snake_case `{method}_{resource}_{action}` names, but a few deviate: `auth_session_callback` lacks the method prefix, `get_sessions_get_key`/`delete_sessions_delete_key` are redundant, and the `secureflows_*` helpers use a different prefix. Still readable and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is slightly above the sweet spot, but the count is justified by distinct session lifecycle operations, auth redirects, and integration helpers. Only `get_docs_search` feels peripheral to the core session domain.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers session create, get-or-create, read, key-level update/delete, renew, revoke, logout, identity, and self-service listing/revocation, plus login/logout URL builders and linting. No important dead ends for the stated auth/session purpose.

Resources