Skip to main content
Glama
nahmanmate

Better Auth MCP Server

by nahmanmate

test_auth_flows

Test authentication workflows including login, registration, password reset, and 2FA to verify system functionality and security.

Instructions

Test authentication workflows

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowsYesAuthentication flows to test

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'test_auth_flows' tool. Extracts 'flows' argument, logs it, and returns a text response indicating tests completed. Currently a placeholder implementation.
    case "test_auth_flows": {
      const { flows } = request.params.arguments as { flows: string[] };
      logger.info(`Testing auth flows: ${flows.join(", ")}`);
      // Implementation would test specified authentication flows
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Auth flow tests completed for: ${flows.join(", ")}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • Schema and registration for 'test_auth_flows' tool in the listTools response, defining input as array of auth flow names with enum values.
    {
      name: "test_auth_flows",
      description: "Test authentication workflows",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          flows: {
            type: "array",
            items: {
              type: "string",
              enum: ["login", "register", "password-reset", "2fa"]
            },
            description: "Authentication flows to test"
          }
        },
        required: ["flows"]
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:133-150 (registration)
    The tool is registered here in the list of tools returned by listTools handler.
    {
      name: "test_auth_flows",
      description: "Test authentication workflows",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          flows: {
            type: "array",
            items: {
              type: "string",
              enum: ["login", "register", "password-reset", "2fa"]
            },
            description: "Authentication flows to test"
          }
        },
        required: ["flows"]
      }
    },
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. 'Test authentication workflows' implies a read-only or diagnostic operation, but it doesn't specify whether it's safe, if it modifies data, requires permissions, has side effects, or details response behavior. 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 extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Test authentication workflows', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core idea without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 authentication testing, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'test' entails, expected outcomes, or how results are returned. For a tool with one parameter but critical behavioral context needed, it falls short of providing sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'flows' parameter well-documented in the schema (including enum values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'test' does with these flows or their interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Test authentication workflows' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It identifies the action ('Test') and domain ('authentication workflows'), but doesn't clarify what 'test' entails (e.g., validation, simulation, verification) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'monitor_auth_flows' or 'test_security'. It's vague about the scope and outcome.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'monitor_auth_flows' (likely for ongoing observation) and 'test_security' (possibly broader security testing), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer usage without explicit 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