Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Raycast MCP Server

Raycast MCP Server

by ExpertVagabond
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

raycast_auth

Set up, validate, audit, or run OAuth authentication for Raycast and connected services such as GitHub, Notion, Slack, Figma, Linear, and Jira.

Instructions

Manage Raycast and service authentication

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "raycast_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAuthentication action to perform
serviceNoService to authenticate with

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether 'setup' or 'oauth' triggers an interactive browser flow, whether credentials are stored, what 'audit' checks, or whether any action is destructive. For an auth tool this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single-phrase description is terse with no wasted words, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — brevity here reflects missing content, not tight writing.

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?

For a tool with four distinct action modes, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what each action does and what auth prerequisites exist. It leaves all of that to bare enum labels, so an agent cannot confidently choose an action.

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% with both enums documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it doesn't explain the interplay between action and service (e.g., which services are valid for which actions).

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the resource (Raycast and service authentication) but uses the vague verb "manage" rather than stating specific operations. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like raycast_search or raycast_extensions, though the domain is at least distinct. An agent knows the topic but not the concrete behavior.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool, which action to use in which situation, or what alternatives exist. The four actions (setup, validate, audit, oauth) are listed only in the schema enum with no explanation of when each applies.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools