Skip to main content
Glama
nahmanmate

Better Auth MCP Server

by nahmanmate

analyze_current_auth

Detect and analyze existing authentication implementations in projects to understand current auth.js/next-auth configurations and identify setup requirements.

Instructions

Detect and analyze existing auth.js/next-auth implementation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesPath to the project root

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'analyze_current_auth' tool. Extracts projectPath, logs the analysis start, and returns a placeholder completion message. Actual implementation is commented as a todo.
    case "analyze_current_auth": {
      const { projectPath } = request.params.arguments as { projectPath: string };
      logger.info(`Analyzing existing auth in ${projectPath}`);
      // Implementation would detect and analyze current auth setup
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Auth analysis complete for ${projectPath}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and inputSchema requiring 'projectPath' for the 'analyze_current_auth' tool.
    {
      name: "analyze_current_auth",
      description: "Detect and analyze existing auth.js/next-auth implementation",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          projectPath: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Path to the project root"
          }
        },
        required: ["projectPath"]
      }
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool detects and analyzes, but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it's read-only, if it modifies files, what output to expect, or any side effects like logging or performance impacts. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential system interactions.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance while being appropriately sized for its function.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling. For a tool that analyzes implementations, more context on what 'analyze' means and what results to expect would be necessary for effective agent use.

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 'projectPath' clearly documented as 'Path to the project root.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detect and analyze existing auth.js/next-auth implementation.' It specifies the action (detect and analyze) and the target resource (auth.js/next-auth implementation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_project' or 'monitor_auth_flows,' which might have overlapping scopes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for initial setup, debugging, or migration scenarios compared to tools like 'setup_better_auth' or 'test_auth_flows.'

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/nahmanmate/better-auth-mcp-server'

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