SassyMCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sassy_setup_generate_token

Destructive

Generate a cryptographically secure token for client authentication, persist it to the token store with owner-only permissions, and provide usage instructions for Bearer or query auth.

Instructions

Mutating: creates a cryptographically secure auth token (secrets.token_urlsafe(32)) and saves it to ~/.sassymcp/tokens.json, replacing any existing entry for the same client_id, then locks the file to owner-only (chmod 0600 on POSIX, ACL lockdown on Windows). The client_id parameter defaults to "default" and identifies the MCP client (e.g. claude-desktop, cursor). The scopes parameter is a comma-separated string defaulting to "read,write"; valid scopes are read, write, and admin. The returned token is shown once only, with usage instructions for the SASSYMCP_AUTH_TOKEN environment variable, the Authorization: Bearer header, and the ?token= query form. Use this when onboarding a new MCP client that needs to authenticate. Trust assumption (deliberate): this tool is intentionally not gated by a confirmation — any MCP client that can call tools can mint bearer tokens, equivalent to the generate-token CLI subcommand, so local automation can bootstrap client auth. Treat every minted token like a password and review ~/.sassymcp/tokens.json if a session behaves unexpectedly. For a read-only view of existing token state, call sassy_setup_status first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scopes`	No		read,write
`client_id`	No		default

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.15.1Sep 18, 2026

addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```

removedOutput schema / properties

Removed value: -{
-  "result": {
-    "title": "Result",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}

removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "result"
-]
```

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"sassy_setup_generate_tokenOutput"New value: +"sassy_setup_generate_tokenDictOutput"

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: the exact file path, permission changes (chmod 0600, ACL on Windows), the one-time display of the token, the deliberate lack of confirmation, and the security heuristic 'treat every minted token like a password.' This is far more than annotations convey.

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 long, but every clause earns its place given the security sensitivity. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Mutating: creates...'), then layers details. It could be slightly tighter, but it avoids fluff and is well organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (auth token lifecycle, file permissions, one-time display, trust assumptions) and the fact that an output schema exists but isn't shown, the description is remarkably complete. It covers side effects, security implications, parameter semantics, and alternatives, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: it explains that client_id defaults to 'default' and identifies the MCP client, and clarifies that scopes is a comma-separated string defaulting to 'read,write' with valid values read, write, and admin. Both parameters are enriched beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('creates'), resource ('cryptographically secure auth token'), and destination ('~/.sassymcp/tokens.json'), and even notes that it replaces existing entries. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming sassy_setup_status as the read-only alternative, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Use this when onboarding a new MCP client that needs to authenticate.' It also gives an explicit alternative ('For a read-only view of existing token state, call sassy_setup_status first') and implicitly says when not to use it (when only a read-only view is needed). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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

Deploy Server