Skip to main content
Glama
LexiconAlex

Better Auth MCP Server

by LexiconAlex

analyze_project

Analyze project structure and dependencies to recommend authentication setup approaches for secure credential management and multi-protocol authentication.

Instructions

Analyze project structure and dependencies to recommend Better-Auth setup approach

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesPath to the project root

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for the 'analyze_project' tool. It extracts the projectPath from arguments, logs the analysis start, and returns a placeholder text response indicating analysis completion.
    case "analyze_project": {
      const { projectPath } = request.params.arguments as { projectPath: string };
      logger.info(`Analyzing project at ${projectPath}`);
      // Implementation would analyze package.json, framework usage, etc.
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Project analysis complete for ${projectPath}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • The input schema for the 'analyze_project' tool, defining a required 'projectPath' string property.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        projectPath: {
          type: "string",
          description: "Path to the project root"
        }
      },
      required: ["projectPath"]
    }
  • src/index.ts:60-73 (registration)
    The tool registration in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "analyze_project",
      description: "Analyze project structure and dependencies to recommend Better-Auth setup approach",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          projectPath: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Path to the project root"
          }
        },
        required: ["projectPath"]
      }
    },
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes and recommends, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it's read-only or mutating, what permissions are needed, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, 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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does, making it appropriately sized and structured for clarity.

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 the complexity (analysis and recommendation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, what the recommendation output includes, or behavioral aspects like safety or performance. With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'projectPath' clearly documented as 'Path to the project root.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Analyze project structure and dependencies to recommend Better-Auth setup approach.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('project structure and dependencies'), and outcome ('recommend Better-Auth setup approach'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_current_auth' or 'setup_better_auth', which would require a 5.

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. With siblings like 'analyze_current_auth', 'setup_better_auth', and 'generate_migration_plan', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description implies usage for analysis but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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