Skip to main content
Glama
nahmanmate

Better Auth MCP Server

by nahmanmate

monitor_auth_flows

Monitor authentication processes in real-time to detect issues and ensure secure user access. Specify duration to track authentication flows continuously.

Instructions

Real-time monitoring of authentication processes

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
durationYesMonitoring duration (e.g. '1h', '30m')

Implementation Reference

  • The switch case that handles execution of the 'monitor_auth_flows' tool. It extracts the 'duration' argument, logs the monitoring start, and returns a placeholder completion message.
    case "monitor_auth_flows": {
      const { duration } = request.params.arguments as { duration: string };
      logger.info(`Starting auth flow monitoring for duration: ${duration}`);
      // Implementation would monitor auth processes
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Auth flow monitoring complete for duration: ${duration}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • Input schema for the 'monitor_auth_flows' tool, defining a required 'duration' string parameter.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        duration: {
          type: "string",
          description: "Monitoring duration (e.g. '1h', '30m')"
        }
      },
      required: ["duration"]
  • src/index.ts:183-196 (registration)
    Registration of the 'monitor_auth_flows' tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "monitor_auth_flows",
      description: "Real-time monitoring of authentication processes",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          duration: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Monitoring duration (e.g. '1h', '30m')"
          }
        },
        required: ["duration"]
      }
    }
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 mentions 'Real-time monitoring' but does not specify what this entails—e.g., whether it streams data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description lacks details on behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a monitoring tool.

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, efficient sentence: 'Real-time monitoring of authentication processes'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but it earns high marks for brevity without redundancy.

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 monitoring authentication processes, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and only a basic purpose statement, it lacks essential details such as what the tool returns, how monitoring works, or any behavioral context. The schema covers the single parameter well, but overall, the description does not provide enough information for effective 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 the single parameter 'duration' documented as 'Monitoring duration (e.g. '1h', '30m')'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this schema, as it does not mention parameters or provide additional context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, reflecting adequate but no extra value from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Real-time monitoring of authentication processes', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('monitoring') and resource ('authentication processes') but lacks specificity about what monitoring entails or what distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_current_auth' or 'test_auth_flows'. It does not restate the name/title tautologically, but it fails to differentiate from alternatives.

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 does not mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'analyze_current_auth' or 'test_auth_flows'. Usage is implied only by the general purpose, with no explicit instructions or comparisons.

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