Skip to main content
Glama
LexiconAlex

Better Auth MCP Server

by LexiconAlex

test_auth_flows

Test authentication workflows including login, registration, password reset, and 2FA to validate security protocols and user experience.

Instructions

Test authentication workflows

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowsYesAuthentication flows to test

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'test_auth_flows' tool. Extracts 'flows' from arguments, logs the test initiation, and returns a text content confirming test completion for the specified flows.
    case "test_auth_flows": {
      const { flows } = request.params.arguments as { flows: string[] };
      logger.info(`Testing auth flows: ${flows.join(", ")}`);
      // Implementation would test specified authentication flows
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Auth flow tests completed for: ${flows.join(", ")}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • Schema definition for the 'test_auth_flows' tool, including name, description, and input schema requiring an array of authentication flows (login, register, password-reset, 2fa). This also serves as registration in the listTools response.
    {
      name: "test_auth_flows",
      description: "Test authentication workflows",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          flows: {
            type: "array",
            items: {
              type: "string",
              enum: ["login", "register", "password-reset", "2fa"]
            },
            description: "Authentication flows to test"
          }
        },
        required: ["flows"]
      }
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Test authentication workflows' but doesn't explain what the tool does (e.g., simulates flows, validates configurations, returns results), potential side effects (e.g., non-destructive testing), or any constraints like rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'testing' involves, what results to expect, or how it differs from siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. This is a notable shortfall for a tool with one parameter but critical behavioral unknowns.

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 the 'flows' parameter clearly documented as 'Authentication flows to test' and an enum of options. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Test authentication workflows' states the general purpose (testing) and domain (authentication workflows), but it's vague about what 'test' entails (e.g., validation, simulation, performance) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'monitor_auth_flows' or 'test_security'. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name, but lacks specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during development or debugging), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This is a significant gap given siblings like 'monitor_auth_flows' and 'test_security' that might overlap.

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