clearskies MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_authentication_info

Retrieve detailed documentation for a clearskies authentication type by providing its name, such as SecretBearer, JWKS, or SecretBasic.

Instructions

Get detailed documentation for a specific clearskies authentication type.

Args:
    auth_type: The auth type name (e.g. "SecretBearer", "JWKS", "SecretBasic").

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "auth_type": "<auth_type>"
    },
    "name": "get_authentication_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`auth_type`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention error conditions, prerequisites, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate for a simple documentation lookup but lacks depth.

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: a single purpose sentence plus the parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the parameter documentation is clear and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential information for selection and invocation. It lacks usage alternatives, but that is captured under usage_guidelines, and the core purpose and parameter are well covered.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter 'auth_type' with examples ('SecretBearer', 'JWKS', 'SecretBasic'). This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare title 'Auth Type'.

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 ('Get detailed documentation') and the specific resource ('a specific clearskies authentication type'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on authentication types, unlike the broader get_*_info family targeting other resources.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_available_authentication. It only states what it does without any context about selecting it over sibling tools or when a list is more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server