Skip to main content
Glama
rollecode

Trakt MCP server

by rollecode

create_oauth_token

Idempotent

Exchange an authorization code for a Trakt OAuth access token to authenticate API requests. Enables secure user authentication for Trakt data access.

Instructions

Exchange a token.

POST /oauth/token

Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, which is notable for a token creation endpoint, but the description doesn't explain what idempotency means here or any side effects. The description also doesn't disclose that this is an OAuth token exchange that likely returns access/refresh tokens, or whether it invalidates previous tokens. With no annotation details beyond hints, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to provide meaningful context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the endpoint, but it includes a somewhat cryptic instruction to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first.' This is not self-contained and may not be actionable for an agent. It's concise but not optimally structured; the pointer to external schema discovery is a workaround rather than a clear explanation.

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?

For an OAuth token exchange tool with a single open-object parameter and no output schema details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the OAuth flow, what the body should contain, what the response will be, or how this tool relates to the authentication lifecycle (start_authentication, finish_authentication, create_oauth_device_code, etc.). An agent would struggle to call this correctly without external documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter 'body' is an open object with additionalProperties: true. The description says 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects,' which is a pointer to external documentation rather than actual parameter semantics. It does not explain what fields the body should contain (e.g., grant_type, code, redirect_uri, client_id, client_secret). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, and the agent is left without concrete guidance.

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 says 'Exchange a token' and includes the HTTP endpoint POST /oauth/token, which conveys the resource and action. However, it doesn't explain what kind of token is being exchanged, what it is exchanged for, or how this relates to the OAuth flow. The name 'create_oauth_token' and the endpoint make the purpose somewhat clear, but the description itself is thin and doesn't distinguish it from sibling OAuth tools like create_oauth_device_code, create_oauth_device_token, or create_oauth_revoke.

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 the OAuth flow context, prerequisites (e.g., needing an authorization code or device code first), or when to use create_oauth_device_token or create_oauth_revoke instead. The only hint is the endpoint path, which an agent would have to infer meaning from.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools