Skip to main content
Glama
nahmanmate

Better Auth MCP Server

by nahmanmate

test_security

Run security tests on authentication setups to validate password policies, rate limiting, and session management configurations.

Instructions

Run security tests on Better-Auth setup

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
testsYes

Implementation Reference

  • The execution handler for the 'test_security' tool. It receives an array of tests (e.g., password-policy, rate-limiting), logs them, and returns a completion message. Note: actual security testing implementation is a placeholder comment.
    case "test_security": {
      const { tests } = request.params.arguments as { tests: string[] };
      logger.info(`Running security tests: ${tests.join(", ")}`);
      // Implementation would run security tests
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Security tests completed for: ${tests.join(", ")}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:151-167 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListTools handler, defining the name, description, and input schema for 'test_security'. The schema expects an object with a 'tests' array containing specific security test names.
    {
      name: "test_security",
      description: "Run security tests on Better-Auth setup",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          tests: {
            type: "array",
            items: {
              type: "string",
              enum: ["password-policy", "rate-limiting", "session-management"]
            }
          }
        },
        required: ["tests"]
      }
    },
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 'Run security tests' but does not explain what this entails—e.g., whether it's a read-only analysis, if it modifies settings, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like generating reports. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 security testing, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or how results should be interpreted, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'security tests' but does not detail the 'tests' parameter beyond what the schema's enum provides (e.g., what each test does or how to interpret results). This adds minimal semantic value, meeting the baseline for low coverage.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'security tests on Better-Auth setup', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_auth_flows' or 'analyze_current_auth', which might cover overlapping security aspects, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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