Skip to main content
Glama

create_oauth_client

Create an organization-bound OAuth API client for Skilljar to enable authenticated access to courses and learners. Configure scopes and IP allowlist, then receive a one-time secret credential.

Instructions

Create an API client BOUND TO THIS ORGANIZATION. Returns a one-time secret.

    THIS IS NOT `register_oauth_client`, and the difference decides whether the
    credential works:

      create_oauth_client     authenticated, and BOUND TO YOUR ORGANIZATION. The
      (this tool)             resulting client can read your courses and learners,
                              within the scopes you give it.

      register_oauth_client   unauthenticated RFC 7591 dynamic registration. Skilljar
                              binds NO organization to it. The client authenticates
                              fine and then reads nothing, forever, with no error
                              that says why.

    Use this one unless you specifically need dynamic registration.

    Scope it with EITHER `scope_codenames` (exact, from `list_oauth_scopes`) OR
    `scope_preset` (a named bundle). Not both — they are two ways of saying the same
    thing and sending both is ambiguous. Give the smallest set that works: scopes are
    the only control that survives a leaked secret.

    `ip_allowlist` restricts where the client may be used from. Empty means anywhere.

    THE RETURNED SECRET IS SHOWN ONCE. There is no endpoint that reads it back; if it
    is lost the client must be rotated or replaced.

    Requires the `clients:write` OAuth scope, and the `admin` capability profile.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
descriptionNo
ip_allowlistNo
scope_presetNo
scope_codenamesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameNo
warningNo
client_idNo
is_activeNo
created_atNo
descriptionNo
ip_allowlistNo
client_secretNo
scope_codenamesNo
Install Server

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the one-time secret behavior, the fact it cannot be read back, the org-bound authenticated nature, that scopes are the only surviving control after a leak, and the required capability profile. Annotations only give generic hints, so this is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 organized into short, front-loaded paragraphs with a clear purpose statement, a critical sibling comparison, and all-caps warnings. Every sentence adds operational value and the formatting makes it scanner-friendly.

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?

For a credential-creating tool with authentication requirements, scope selection, IP restrictions, and one-time-secret semantics, the description covers all non-obvious aspects needed to call it correctly. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so no additional output explanation is needed.

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 well: it explains scope_codenames vs scope_preset (and warns against using both), explains ip_allowlist semantics, and points to list_oauth_scopes. It does not explicitly describe the name or description parameters, but those are self-evident.

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 'Create an API client BOUND TO THIS ORGANIZATION' — a specific verb, resource, and binding constraint. It also explicitly contrasts itself with register_oauth_client, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives direct guidance: 'Use this one unless you specifically need dynamic registration' and names the alternative register_oauth_client. It also states required auth conditions (clients:write scope, admin capability) and clear scope-parameter usage rules.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/CloudSecurityAlliance/csa-skilljar'

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