enterprise-auth-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: decoding, validating, checking permissions, extracting roles, listing scopes, OIDC discovery, token introspection, and OIDC claims verification. Despite some thematic overlap, the descriptions ensure no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., check_permissions, decode_jwt, get_oidc_discovery). No mixing of conventions or irregular naming.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for an enterprise auth server. Each tool covers a distinct authentication or authorization operation without unnecessary duplication or gaps.
Completeness4/5
The set covers core JWT operations, OIDC discovery, token introspection, and permission checking. Minor gaps like userinfo endpoint retrieval or token refresh are not critical for the server's stated purpose, so the surface is reasonably complete.
Average 3.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it performs token introspection against a URL or falls back to local JWT decoding. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions.
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 extremely concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the standard name and RFC reference. No unnecessary text.
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?
Despite low complexity, the description is incomplete: it lacks explanation of return values, when to provide client credentials, and how it differs from similar sibling tools like decode_jwt. Output schema is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only adds meaning for introspection_url (optional, fallback behavior). Other parameters (token, client_id, client_secret) are not explained beyond their names and defaults.
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 clearly states the tool performs OAuth 2.0 Token-Introspection per RFC 7662, with explicit mention of introspection_url and fallback local JWT decoding. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_jwt and validate_jwt.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions a fallback behavior, it does not specify scenarios where oauth_introspect is preferred over sibling tools like check_permissions or verify_oidc_claims.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the output (list of endpoints) but does not disclose potential side effects (network call), error conditions, or required permissions. The expected behavior is partially transparent.
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 three concise sentences: first states the action, second lists output, third gives examples. It is efficiently front-loaded with no unnecessary text.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output. It could be more complete by mentioning that it makes an HTTP request and that the issuer_url must be a valid URL, but it is sufficient for the given complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by giving example issuer URLs (e.g., from Google and Microsoft), adding meaning beyond the plain schema title 'Issuer Url'. It helps the agent understand the format and expected value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the OIDC discovery document and lists returned endpoints (authorization, token, userinfo, jwks_uri). It provides an example issuer_url. The purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools, though not explicitly differentiated.
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?
The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., decode_jwt, validate_jwt). There is no guidance on prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid tokens, or the return format. This is insufficient for a permission check tool.
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 concise with two lines, including purpose and parameter format examples. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slight formatting improvements could enhance readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and sibling tools, the description covers the core purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on return values, error handling, or when to choose this tool over similar ones.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains required_scopes and required_roles as comma-separated lists with examples, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the token parameter is not described.
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 clearly states the tool checks if a JWT token has required scopes and roles, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_jwt (token validity) and decode_jwt (token decoding) by focusing on authorization checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for permission checks but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as validate_jwt or list_token_scopes. No exclusion criteria or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly and mentions auto-detection of IdP, but it does not detail return format, error handling, or constraints like token validity. Adequate but not thorough.
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 front-load the core purpose (list scopes/roles/permissions) and a secondary feature (auto-detect IdP). Every word is informative with no redundancy.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's function and a key differentiator (IdP detection). However, additional context about output structure or sibling tool differentiation would enhance completeness.
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 0% for the token parameter, but the description does not add new information beyond stating it is a JWT token. The parameter meaning is somewhat inferred from the tool purpose, but no format or requirement details are provided. Minimal added value.
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 clearly states that the tool lists all scopes, roles, and permissions from a JWT token, with the additional feature of auto-detecting the identity provider. This specific verb-resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_jwt or validate_jwt.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting JWT tokens, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., decode_jwt, validate_jwt) or mention prerequisites or limitations. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It mentions signature checking, expiration, and claims validation, but does not explain failure behavior (e.g., error vs boolean), idempotency, or side effects.
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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, though a more structured format could improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides core validation behavior and parameter usage. It lacks return format details and error handling, but is sufficient for basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds essential meaning: secret can be empty to skip signature check, algorithms is comma-separated, audience and issuer are optional expectations. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool validates JWT tokens by checking signature, expiration, and claims. It distinguishes itself from siblings like decode_jwt (decoding only) and oauth_introspect (OAuth-specific).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for general JWT validation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not-to or prerequisite guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks specific claims and detects missing required claims and mismatches, which are core behaviors. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe error handling or side effects, which would be beneficial.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose (validate OIDC claims), and the second adds specifics about what is checked and detected. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the validation checks but lacks details on return format, error handling, and exact parameter behavior (e.g., what happens if expected_nonce is not provided). Adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters (token, expected_nonce, expected_issuer, expected_audience). It only mentions the claims checked (nonce, iss, aud) which obliquely relates to expected parameters but does not clarify their meaning or format.
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 clearly states it validates OIDC-specific claims per OpenID Connect Core 1.0, listing specific claims (iss, sub, aud, exp, iat, nonce) and detection of missing required claims and mismatches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_jwt or validate_jwt which are more generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for OIDC token validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., validate_jwt, oauth_introspect). No exclusions or context for when not to use it are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description covers key behavioral traits: it decodes without signature validation and returns three components. Missing details on error handling or token format, but acceptable for a simple tool.
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?
Three concise sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with core action and constraints.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and what it returns. Could mention error cases, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on the 'token' parameter beyond its name, missing the opportunity to specify expected format or constraints (e.g., 'a valid JWT string'). Minimal value added over the parameter name.
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?
Description clearly states the tool decodes a JWT without signature validation and returns header, payload, and metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_jwt which perform validation.
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?
Indicates it is useful for quick inspection, implying use cases. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use, the sibling validate_jwt provides an alternative for validation, making the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior (extracting roles and identity) and supported claim types (standard claims, Keycloak realm_access/resource_access). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so adequately, though error handling or limitations are not mentioned.
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose with no wasted words, making it quick to read and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's core function and distinguishes it from siblings, but without an output schema, it lacks detail on return format or structure, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only one parameter 'token' and 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the token is a JWT used to extract roles and identity, going beyond the schema's bare 'token' label.
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 clearly states the tool extracts user roles and identity information from a JWT, specifically mentioning Keycloak support, which distinguishes it from siblings like decode_jwt or validate_jwt.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for extracting roles, especially from Keycloak tokens, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![enterprise-auth-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiAgentKarl/enterprise-auth-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiAgentKarl/enterprise-auth-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![enterprise-auth-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiAgentKarl/enterprise-auth-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiAgentKarl/enterprise-auth-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AiAgentKarl/enterprise-auth-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server