Skip to main content
Glama
LexiconAlex

Better Auth MCP Server

by LexiconAlex

analyze_current_auth

Detect and analyze existing authentication implementations in your project to understand current setup and identify configuration details.

Instructions

Detect and analyze existing auth.js/next-auth implementation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesPath to the project root

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:99-112 (registration)
    Registration of the 'analyze_current_auth' tool in the listTools handler, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "analyze_current_auth",
      description: "Detect and analyze existing auth.js/next-auth implementation",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          projectPath: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Path to the project root"
          }
        },
        required: ["projectPath"]
      }
    },
  • The handler function for the 'analyze_current_auth' tool. It extracts the projectPath from arguments, logs the action, and returns a text content response indicating analysis completion. The actual detection logic is currently a comment (stubbed implementation).
    case "analyze_current_auth": {
      const { projectPath } = request.params.arguments as { projectPath: string };
      logger.info(`Analyzing existing auth in ${projectPath}`);
      // Implementation would detect and analyze current auth setup
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Auth analysis complete for ${projectPath}`
        }]
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool detects and analyzes, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'analyze' entails (e.g., output format, depth of analysis, whether it modifies files, or if it requires specific permissions). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part earning its place.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns, how results are presented, or any behavioral context needed for effective use. For a tool with 'analyze' in its name, this lack of output information is a notable gap.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'projectPath' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format expectations or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Detect and analyze existing auth.js/next-auth implementation.' It specifies the action (detect and analyze) and the target resource (auth.js/next-auth implementation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_project' or 'setup_better_auth' which might have overlapping scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With siblings like 'analyze_project' (broader analysis) and 'setup_better_auth' (implementation-focused), the lack of differentiation leaves usage ambiguous.

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

Install Server

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/LexiconAlex/better-auth-mcp-server'

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