Skip to main content
Glama
MCP Kafka Schema Reg

MCP Kafka Schema Reg

Test Oauth Discovery Endpoints

test_oauth_discovery_endpoints
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate OAuth discovery endpoints for authorization server, protected resource, and JWKS metadata to confirm MCP client compatibility and catch misconfigurations.

Instructions

Test OAuth discovery endpoints to ensure proper MCP client compatibility.

Validates:

  • /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server

  • /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource

  • /.well-known/jwks.json

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "test_oauth_discovery_endpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
server_urlNoBase URL of the MCP server (default: http://localhost:8000)http://localhost:8000

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.1.0
  2. Removedv2.2.2
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by listing the three endpoints probed, but it does not say what happens on failure (exception vs. per-endpoint result), whether network access to the target is required, or how long it may take.

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?

Two front-loaded clauses plus a three-item list; no filler and the list carries the most actionable content. Structure matches how an agent scans for scope.

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?

For a simple, read-only, single-parameter diagnostic this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say what a result looks like (pass/fail per endpoint, aggregate status). That omission leaves the agent unable to predict the response shape.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, including the default value, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions server_url or the localhost default, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination: 'Test OAuth discovery endpoints' and enumerates the exact three well-known paths validated. This distinguishes it from a read-style sibling like get_oauth_scopes_info, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an implied context of use ('ensure proper MCP client compatibility') and nothing more; there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing statements. An agent can infer this is a diagnostic pre-check, but must guess at prerequisites.

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