auth-mcp

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: set (create/update), get (retrieve value), list (enumerate metadata), search (query metadata), delete (remove), recommend (AI selection), and health (server status). No two tools perform the same action; even the related list/search/recommend are distinguished by their inputs and outputs.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'auth_<verb>' pattern (set, list, search, recommend, delete, get, health). The verb is always lowercase and after the namespace prefix, making the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is ideal for a credential vault: it covers the full lifecycle (create, read, update/delete, list/search) plus health and an AI recommendation feature. Every tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness5/5
The surface fully covers credential management: creation/updating (auth_set), retrieval (auth_get), listing (auth_list), searching (auth_search), deletion (auth_delete), and an intelligent selection helper (auth_recommend). No essential operation is missing, and the workflow between recommend and get is explicitly documented.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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?
The description explicitly says 'permanently delete,' disclosing the destructive and irreversible nature of the operation. It also states the return type (confirmation). However, with no annotations, it lacks additional behavioral context such as required permissions or error behavior.
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 concise and well-structured with an Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.
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 delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the essential elements: action, parameter meaning, and return value. It lacks potential error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
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 must compensate. It explains the single parameter 'name' as 'Credential name,' which clarifies the semantics beyond the bare schema. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is adequate.
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 action (permanently delete) and the resource (a credential from the vault). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_set, auth_list, and auth_get.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the credential needing to exist, nor does it explain when to prefer delete over other auth tools.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Health check' without disclosing what the check entails, whether it is read-only, what information it returns, or if any side effects exist. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no unnecessary words. It earns its place perfectly.
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 the tool's simplicity (zero params, output schema present), the description is minimally viable but lacks detail about what 'health' means (e.g., connectivity, uptime) or how the result should be interpreted. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't reference it, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per baseline rules, a 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to convey beyond what the schema already provides.
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's purpose: a health check for the auth-mcp server. The verb 'check' and resource 'auth-mcp server' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling auth operation tools by focusing on health status.
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 implies when to use: when needing to verify the health of the auth-mcp server. While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, the context is clear that this is a diagnostic tool, distinct from the operational auth tools listed.
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 does add value by disclosing 'metadata only', indicating a read-only behavior and that secrets are not returned. However, it does not cover permissions, match behavior, or handling of no results.
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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and search scope. It does not explain return values, but the output schema can cover that, so the description is sufficiently complete.
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?
The schema has one required parameter 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the query matches name or description, giving the parameter semantic meaning. It doesn't specify match type, but that is acceptable for a search tool.
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 action ('Search'), the resource ('stored credentials'), and the scope ('by name or description (metadata only)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like auth_get (which likely retrieves full credentials) and auth_list (which lists all credentials).
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 context by noting the search is by name/description and metadata only, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool versus auth_get or auth_list. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.
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 burden of disclosure. It explicitly describes the masking default behavior and the ability to retrieve the full value, which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but the core behavioral trait is well covered.
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 a tidy docstring with a one-sentence summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return types. It covers the primary behavior (retrieval with masking) and parameter semantics sufficiently. It lacks discussion of edge cases like missing credentials, but the overall context is complete for a simple retrieval tool.
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 provides a clear explanation for 'name' (Credential name) and thoroughly explains the 'mask' parameter, including the default and the resulting masked format. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 starts with 'Retrieve a credential value,' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like auth_list (listing) and auth_search (searching). It also explains the mask behavior, further clarifying its purpose.
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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving a single credential by name, and explains the mask option. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool names.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that values are never returned, which is a critical behavioral safety trait. It does not cover prerequisites or side effects, but for a read-only list operation, the key transparency is addressed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is information-dense and free of extraneous words. Every part adds value: action, scope, content list, and exclusion of secrets.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, zero parameters, and existence of an output schema, the description fully covers the essential context. It tells the agent what to expect (names and metadata, not values) without over-explaining, leaving return format details to the output schema.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is fully covered by having no properties. The description adds meaningful context about what is included (names + metadata) and excluded (values), going beyond the minimal baseline for parameterless tools.
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 a specific action ('List all stored credentials') with a clear scope (all) and content boundary (names + metadata only). This distinguishes it from siblings like auth_get, auth_search, and auth_delete, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly indicates this tool is for listing all credentials, which implies its use case versus alternatives like auth_search or auth_get. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternative tools, leaving it slightly below the highest bar.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the value is never echoed back and that only masked metadata is returned, which is important security behavior. However, it does not specify error handling, idempotency, or prerequisites, so it is not fully comprehensive.
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 tightly organized with separate sections for Args and Returns, using short lines and no redundant text. Each sentence adds value, and the format makes it easy to scan and parse.
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?
With 3 parameters, an output schema present, and no annotations, the description provides enough to select and use the tool correctly. It covers purpose, argument semantics, and return behavior. It omits edge-case behavior like what happens if a name already exists, but that is minor given the 'create or update' phrasing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description is the sole source of parameter semantics. It provides meaningful details: name is unique with examples, value is secret and not echoed, description is optional and used for human-readable notes. This far exceeds the schema's bare type definitions.
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 'Create or update an API key / credential in the vault' which is a specific verb (create/update) with a resource (API key/credential) and location (vault). This distinguishes it from siblings like auth_list, auth_get, and auth_delete that have different actions.
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 implies usage for storing new credentials or updating existing ones, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'use auth_get to retrieve' or 'do not use for deletion'. Clear context is provided, but no when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 clearly states that values never leave the vault, that it uses MCP sampling, that it sends only names and descriptions to the LLM, and that it degrades gracefully to returning the full list. This is comprehensive for a read-only recommendation 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 well-structured with a summary, mechanism, fallback behavior, and Args/Returns sections. It is slightly longer than absolutely necessary but every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.
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 tool with one parameter and a non-trivial output shape, the description fully covers the return fields (recommendation, reasoning, available), the security model, and the graceful degradation path. It is complete given the complexity and lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'task' has no schema description (0% coverage), so the tool description must compensate. It does so effectively with 'What the credential will be used for' and a concrete example, adding meaning beyond the bare schema definition.
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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Ask goose's AI to pick the best stored credential for a task.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_get (which retrieves values) and auth_search (which searches), and it explains the unique AI-driven selection mechanism.
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 provides context for use ('when you need to pick the best credential for a task') and explicitly tells the caller to retrieve the value afterward with auth_get. It also describes graceful degradation when sampling is unsupported, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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:

[![auth-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KB01111/auth-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KB01111/auth-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![auth-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KB01111/auth-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KB01111/auth-mcp)

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/KB01111/auth-mcp'

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