synauth-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: requesting approval, checking status, waiting, viewing history, listing services, executing API calls, and checking spending. No overlaps.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use consistent verb_noun snake_case naming (e.g., check_approval, execute_api_call, list_vault_services).
Tool Count5/5
7 tools cover the core functionality of a credential/approval system without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
Covers the main approval lifecycle and API execution flow. Minor gap: no tool to list pending approvals or cancel requests, but core workflows are supported.
Average 4.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on February 24, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the returned statuses but omits details like authentication requirements or rate limits.
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 sentences with front-loaded information: verb and resource first, then value proposition. No wasted words.
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?
Clear on what is returned (resolved requests with outcomes), but could specify default ordering or pagination details given no output schema.
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?
Schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 tool retrieves history of resolved approval requests and specifies the types included (past approved, denied, expired), distinguishing it from siblings like request_approval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Useful for reviewing what actions have been taken and their outcomes' implies its usage context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses polling behavior, final status return, and default timeout/interval. It mentions outcomes (approved, denied, expired) but omits error handling or cancellation behavior.
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?
Very concise: 4 sentences cover purpose, mechanism, return, usage, and defaults with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Covers the core workflow, blocking behavior, and defaults. Lacks explicit mention of timeout result (implied 'expired') and return format, but overall sufficient for a parametric wait tool with no output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions already provided. The description repeats default values but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.
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 'Wait for an approval request to be resolved' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'check_approval' by noting it blocks until human responds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this when you need to block until the human responds,' guiding when to use. It does not explicitly list alternatives but implies that non-blocking check is available via sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: returns immediately with request ID and status, can be auto-approved/denied or pending, and uses biometric verification. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided). However, it could add more detail about potential failures or cancellation behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a concise summary, followed by lists of action types and risk levels, and two illustrative examples. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool with 10 parameters, though slightly longer than necessary. Every section adds value.
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 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavior. It explains return values (request ID and status) and includes examples. Additional details about output format or error handling would increase completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by providing examples, explaining how risk_level affects UI urgency, and showing typical use cases for amount and action_type. This justifies a 4.
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 tool's function: requesting human approval for AI actions via Face ID. It lists specific action types and risk levels, and provides examples that illustrate usage for different scenarios. The sibling tools include check_approval and get_approval_history, which are distinct, so the tool stands out clearly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (when human approval is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like check_approval or wait_for_approval. The examples give good context, but explicit guidance on avoiding this tool for non-approval actions would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully covers behavior: biometric approval, single-use approvals, credential injection, agent never sees key, URL host restriction, and timeout. Transparent about flow and security.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with summary, step-by-step flow, security note, and example. Slightly verbose but every detail contributes; could be more concise without losing clarity.
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?
Covers purpose, flow, and security well, but lacks description of return value structure and error handling (e.g., user denial, invalid URL). Without output schema, additional detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 100% means baseline 3, but description adds value by explaining purpose of each parameter (e.g., headers as additional, body for JSON, timeout for approval wait), providing an example, and clarifying description parameter usage.
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?
Description clearly states the tool makes API calls using stored credentials, with explicit flow and security enforcement. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vault_services by explaining it's the core execution tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear usage context: required when making API calls with vault credentials, flows step-by-step, and notes security constraint (URL matching allowed hosts). However, does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately discloses the tool is a read operation that returns status and details, but doesn't explicitly state idempotency or safety. Still, the behavior is transparent enough for this simple query.
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?
Concise three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns, including specific fields like timestamps and deny reason.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the single parameter request_id with a description. The tool description also mentions it, reinforcing the meaning. No additional semantics needed beyond what's in the schema.
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 tool checks approval status, specifies the returned information (status, timestamps, resolution method, deny reason), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_approval and wait_for_approval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use after request_approval to check human response. Provides clear timing context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use (e.g., if waiting is desired).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the agent never sees actual credential values, only names and metadata, and mentions allowed hosts restriction. This is sufficient transparency for a list tool.
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 concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, what is returned (metadata, not credentials), and usage in relation to a sibling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (service names and metadata), which complements the input schema.
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 that the tool lists vault services (stored API credentials). It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'vault services', and distinguishes from sibling 'execute_api_call' by indicating that it is a discovery step before that call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this to discover what API services are available before calling execute_api_call.' This provides clear context and connects to a sibling tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description explains it returns spending limits and current spend, implying read-only behavior. Does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, but the nature of the tool is clear.
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?
Concise at 4-5 sentences, each sentence adds value. Front-loaded purpose, followed by return details and usage guidance. No redundancy.
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?
Description covers purpose, usage guidance, and return fields. Missing explicit mention of read-only nature or error conditions, but adequate for a simple parameterless tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 applies as description does not need to add parameter details.
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?
Description clearly states it checks spending against limits and returns a summary with specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools (approvals, vault services) by focusing on budget status before monetary actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using this tool before making purchases or monetary actions to check budget, preventing spending limit denials. Provides clear context on when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![synauth-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dennischoubot-glitch/synauth-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dennischoubot-glitch/synauth-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![synauth-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dennischoubot-glitch/synauth-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dennischoubot-glitch/synauth-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/dennischoubot-glitch/synauth-mcp'

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