Skip to main content
Glama
laszlopere

mcp-bytesmith

otpauth_uri

Build or parse otpauth:// provisioning URIs from components like secret, label, and issuer. Supports TOTP and HOTP types.

Instructions

Build an otpauth:// provisioning URI from parts, or parse one (Key URI Format).

action=build (needs secret): assembles otpauth://<type>/<label>?secret=...&issuer=...secret is normalized to canonical base32, type='hotp' requires counter, and counter/period must match the type. action=parse (needs uri): returns type, the decoded label (plus issuer/account split on the first ':'), secret, and the algorithm/digits/period/counter parameters with their RFC defaults. This codec never computes OTP codes; the base32 secret is passed through. Example: otpauth_uri("build", label="alice@example.com", secret="JBSWY3DPEHPK3PXP", issuer="Example") -> "otpauth://totp/Example:alice@example.com?secret=...&issuer=Example"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriNoThe 'otpauth://...' URI to parse (action=parse). Default None.
typeNoOTP kind: 'totp' (time-based, RFC 6238) or 'hotp' (counter-based, RFC 4226). Default 'totp'.totp
labelNoAccount label for build, e.g. 'alice@example.com'. If `issuer` is set and the label has no 'issuer:' prefix, one is added. Default None.
actionYes'build' assembles an otpauth:// URI from parts (needs `secret`); 'parse' splits one into its parts (needs `uri`).
digitsNoNumber of code digits (commonly 6 or 8). Default None.
issuerNoProvider name, e.g. 'Example Inc'. Default None.
periodNoTOTP time step in seconds (totp only). Default None.
secretNoBase32 shared secret (RFC 4648, A-Z2-7) for build; spaces and '=' padding are ignored. Default None.
counterNoHOTP counter (required for and valid only with type='hotp'). Default None.
algorithmNoHMAC hash: SHA1 (default when omitted), SHA256, or SHA512. Default None.
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool never computes OTP codes, normalizes secret to base32, and applies RFC defaults. It does not discuss security implications of secret handling, but for a codec tool, it is adequately transparent.

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 a single paragraph but is well-structured, front-loading the purpose and splitting into build/parse sections with an example. It is concise given the complexity of the tool.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the two modes, the return values (URI or parsed parts), and key parameter constraints. It is fairly complete for a codec 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining interactions (e.g., label handling with issuer, counter required for hotp) and provides an example. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 builds or parses otpauth:// URIs, with specific verbs and a resource. It distinguishes between build and parse actions, and the example reinforces the purpose. No confusion with sibling tools.

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 build (needs secret) vs parse (needs uri), and notes constraints like type='hotp' requires counter. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the guidance is clear enough for correct usage.

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/laszlopere/mcp-bytesmith'

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