github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-23 23:52:05 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #7184] OAuth-Provider: CIMD #10754

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-04-13 07:05:23 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 1 comment
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 07:05:23 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @dvanmali on GitHub (Jan 7, 2026).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/7184

Is this suited for github?

  • Yes, this is suited for github

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

No response

Describe the solution you'd like

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification currently references OAuth Client ID Metadata Documents (CIMD) as a recommended mechanism for client registration and identification in the authorization flow.

CIMD enables MCP clients and authorization servers to use HTTPS URLs as client_ids, pointing to JSON metadata documents describing the client. This method is particularly useful in scenarios where clients and servers have no prior relationship, reducing friction compared to traditional preregistration or dynamic client registration approaches.

Example Client Metadata Document:

{
  "client_id": "https://example.com/mcp/client-metadata.json",
  "client_name": "Example MCP Client",
  "client_uri": "https://example.com",
  "logo_uri": "https://example.com/logo.png",
  "redirect_uris": [
    "https://example.com/callback"
  ],
  "grant_types": ["authorization_code"],
  "response_types": ["code"],
  "token_endpoint_auth_method": "none"
}

Describe alternatives you've considered

allowUnauthenticatedClientRegistration is considered insecure.

Additional context

No response

Originally created by @dvanmali on GitHub (Jan 7, 2026). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/7184 ### Is this suited for github? - [x] Yes, this is suited for github ### Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. _No response_ ### Describe the solution you'd like The Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification currently references OAuth [Client ID Metadata Documents (CIMD)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/draft/basic/authorization#client-id-metadata-documents) as a recommended mechanism for client registration and identification in the authorization flow. CIMD enables MCP clients and authorization servers to use HTTPS URLs as client_ids, pointing to JSON metadata documents describing the client. This method is particularly useful in scenarios where clients and servers have no prior relationship, reducing friction compared to traditional preregistration or dynamic client registration approaches. Example Client Metadata Document: ```json { "client_id": "https://example.com/mcp/client-metadata.json", "client_name": "Example MCP Client", "client_uri": "https://example.com", "logo_uri": "https://example.com/logo.png", "redirect_uris": [ "https://example.com/callback" ], "grant_types": ["authorization_code"], "response_types": ["code"], "token_endpoint_auth_method": "none" } ``` ### Describe alternatives you've considered `allowUnauthenticatedClientRegistration` is considered insecure. ### Additional context _No response_
GiteaMirror added the identity label 2026-04-13 07:05:23 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 07:05:25 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2026):

It seems you are inquiring about OAuth-Provider CIMD and its suitability for GitHub. Based on the context provided, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification references OAuth Client ID Metadata Documents (CIMD) for client registration and identification in the authorization flow. This approach reduces friction in scenarios where clients and servers haven't established previous relationships, making it practical for various integrations.

Since this relates to how OAuth works within the GitHub ecosystem, I can confirm that your proposed method aligns with the intended utility of OAuth in this context. However, if you have specific implementation details or barriers you're encountering, please share!

If you'd like further assistance or have more detailed questions, feel free to ask! If it requires specialized input, tagging @better-auth-agent could provide you with additional support. Would you like to know more about implementing OAuth in your project?

If you need more help, tag @better-auth-agent in a comment so I can respond.

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

Diagram Join Star

<!-- gh-comment-id:3720919504 --> @better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2026): It seems you are inquiring about OAuth-Provider CIMD and its suitability for GitHub. Based on the context provided, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification references OAuth Client ID Metadata Documents (CIMD) for client registration and identification in the authorization flow. This approach reduces friction in scenarios where clients and servers haven't established previous relationships, making it practical for various integrations. Since this relates to how OAuth works within the GitHub ecosystem, I can confirm that your proposed method aligns with the intended utility of OAuth in this context. However, if you have specific implementation details or barriers you're encountering, please share! If you'd like further assistance or have more detailed questions, feel free to ask! If it requires specialized input, tagging @better-auth-agent could provide you with additional support. Would you like to know more about implementing OAuth in your project? _If you need more help, tag @better-auth-agent in a comment so I can respond._ <!-- bot:webhook reply v1 --> [Diagram](https://repodiagrams.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/skyvern_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) • [Discord](https://discord.gg/fG2XXEuQX3) • [GitHub](https://github.com/Skyvern-AI/Skyvern) [![Diagram](https://img.shields.io/badge/Diagram-2b3137?style=flat-square)](https://repodiagrams.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/skyvern_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) [![Join](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://discord.gg/fG2XXEuQX3) [![Star](https://img.shields.io/badge/star-181717?logo=github&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://github.com/Skyvern-AI/Skyvern)
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
adapter
astro
awaiting external contributor
blocked
breaking
breaking change
bug
c-devops
core
credentials
database
dependencies
devops
devtools
docs
documentation
duplicate
elysia
enhancement
enterprise
expo
express
fastify
good first issue
help wanted
hono
identity
infra
integration
invalid
javascript
locked
maintenance
need-more-information
needs: info
needs: repro
nextjs
nuxt
oauth
organization
P0
payments
perf
platform
plugin
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
ready
regression
remix
security
social-provider
solid
stale
svelte
tanstack-start
tracking
version-bump
vue
wontfix
No Label identity
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/better-auth#10754
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?