github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-26 17:06:41 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

oauth-authorization-server endpoint for OIDC provider #1614

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-03-13 08:51:35 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 1 comment
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 08:51:35 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @conradev on GitHub (Aug 1, 2025).

Is this suited for github?

  • Yes, this is suited for github

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

Right now, the MCP plugin comes with a oAuthDiscoveryMetadata function to create a /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server endpoint to conform to RFC8414.

It would be great to enable this function for the regular OIDC provider as well, because RFC8414 applies to both.

Describe the solution you'd like

I imagine that in order to do that, though, you'd need to either align the metadata between OIDC and MCP or resolve conflicts between them. In an ideal world, MCP would be built on top of OIDC and just require things like allowDynamicClientRegistration to be set.

Describe alternatives you've considered

You can work around the issue by returning metadata statically, but because dynamic entities like JWKS keys exist, I think it'd be better for better-auth to handle this.

Additional context

No response

Originally created by @conradev on GitHub (Aug 1, 2025). ### Is this suited for github? - [x] Yes, this is suited for github ### Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Right now, the MCP plugin comes with a `oAuthDiscoveryMetadata` function to create a `/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server` endpoint to conform to RFC8414. It would be great to enable this function for the regular OIDC provider as well, because RFC8414 applies to both. ### Describe the solution you'd like I imagine that in order to do that, though, you'd need to either align the metadata between OIDC and MCP or resolve conflicts between them. In an ideal world, MCP would be built on top of OIDC and just require things like `allowDynamicClientRegistration` to be set. ### Describe alternatives you've considered You can work around the issue by returning metadata statically, but because dynamic entities like JWKS keys exist, I think it'd be better for better-auth to handle this. ### Additional context _No response_
GiteaMirror added the enhancement label 2026-03-13 08:51:35 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 08:51:36 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2025):

Hi, @conradev. I'm Dosu, and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog and am marking this issue as stale.

Issue Summary:

  • You requested adding support for the /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server endpoint in the standard OIDC provider to comply with RFC8414.
  • You suggested aligning metadata handling between OIDC and MCP or integrating MCP on top of OIDC for better consistency.
  • Currently, static metadata is used as a workaround, but you prefer dynamic support within better-auth.
  • There has been no further activity or updates on this issue so far.

Next Steps:

  • Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest version of better-auth by commenting here to keep the discussion open.
  • Otherwise, this issue will be automatically closed in 7 days.

Thank you for your understanding and contribution!

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2025): Hi, @conradev. I'm [Dosu](https://dosu.dev), and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog and am marking this issue as stale. **Issue Summary:** - You requested adding support for the `/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server` endpoint in the standard OIDC provider to comply with RFC8414. - You suggested aligning metadata handling between OIDC and MCP or integrating MCP on top of OIDC for better consistency. - Currently, static metadata is used as a workaround, but you prefer dynamic support within better-auth. - There has been no further activity or updates on this issue so far. **Next Steps:** - Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest version of better-auth by commenting here to keep the discussion open. - Otherwise, this issue will be automatically closed in 7 days. Thank you for your understanding and contribution!
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 enhancement
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#1614
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?