Skip to main content
Glama
nahmanmate

Better Auth MCP Server

by nahmanmate

analyze_project

Analyze project structure and dependencies to determine the optimal authentication setup approach for your application.

Instructions

Analyze project structure and dependencies to recommend Better-Auth setup approach

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesPath to the project root

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'analyze_project' tool. It extracts the projectPath from arguments, logs the analysis start, and returns a text content confirming completion. Note: currently a placeholder implementation.
    case "analyze_project": {
      const { projectPath } = request.params.arguments as { projectPath: string };
      logger.info(`Analyzing project at ${projectPath}`);
      // Implementation would analyze package.json, framework usage, etc.
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Project analysis complete for ${projectPath}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:60-73 (registration)
    Registration of the 'analyze_project' tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema definition.
    {
      name: "analyze_project",
      description: "Analyze project structure and dependencies to recommend Better-Auth setup approach",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          projectPath: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Path to the project root"
          }
        },
        required: ["projectPath"]
      }
    },
  • Input schema definition for the 'analyze_project' tool, specifying the required 'projectPath' parameter.
    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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis and recommendation, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but fails to specify if it requires specific permissions, how recommendations are formatted, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of analyzing project dependencies and recommending setups, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it lacks information on what the analysis entails, the format of recommendations, or how results are returned. This makes it inadequate for guiding an agent in effectively using the tool.

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 the path to the project root. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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: analyzing project structure and dependencies to recommend a Better-Auth setup approach. It specifies the verb 'analyze' and the resource 'project structure and dependencies', making it distinct from siblings like 'analyze_current_auth' or 'analyze_logs'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from these siblings in terms of scope or output.

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, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'analyze_current_auth' for existing auth systems or 'setup_better_auth' for direct setup. This lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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