modelcontextprotocol / modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk

Server ClientAuthenticator requires client_id in token body, rejecting valid client_secret_basic requests (RFC 6749 §2.3.1)

Open Beginner friendly
#3,545 1 comment 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

v1 v2
Dominant language
Python
Stars
24.3k
Forks
4k
Avg merge
1d 1h
Merged PRs (30d)
31

Description

Summary

The server-side ClientAuthenticator reads client_id only from the token request form body and raises invalid_client: "Missing client_id" when it is absent — even when the client authenticated correctly via HTTP Basic (Authorization: Basic base64(client_id:client_secret)). Per RFC 6749 §2.3.1, a client using client_secret_basic sends its client_id and client_secret in the Authorization header and MAY omit them from the body. Servers advertising client_secret_basic in token_endpoint_auth_methods_supported therefore reject spec-compliant clients (e.g. clients that use Basic and do not duplicate client_id into the body).

Location

src/mcp/server/auth/middleware/client_auth.py, authenticate_request:

form_data = await request.form()
client_id = form_data.get("client_id")
if not client_id:
    raise AuthenticationError("Missing client_id")
...
if client.token_endpoint_auth_method == "client_secret_basic":
    ...
    basic_client_id, request_client_secret = decoded.split(":", 1)
    basic_client_id = unquote(basic_client_id)
    if basic_client_id != client_id:   # only cross-checks; never used as fallback
        raise AuthenticationError("Client ID mismatch in Basic auth")

client_id from the Basic header is only used to cross-check a body-supplied value; it is never used as a fallback source. So a request with credentials solely in the Basic header fails before the client is even looked up.

Steps to reproduce
  1. Register a client with token_endpoint_auth_method=client_secret_basic.
  2. POST /token with grant_type=authorization_code, Authorization: Basic base64(client_id:client_secret), and no client_id/client_secret in the form body.
  3. Response: 401 {"error":"invalid_client","error_description":"Missing client_id"}.

Sending the same credentials via client_secret_post (in the body) works.

Expected

When Authorization: Basic is present, the authenticator should derive client_id from the header if it is absent from the body (RFC 6749 §2.3.1), then verify the secret as it does today.

Notes

This is the mirror image of client-side PR #3536 (which stops MCP clients from putting client_id in the body under client_secret_basic). With that client-side change, compliant clients will send client_id only in the Basic header — which this server-side code rejects. The two need to agree.

Observed on mcp 1.27.0.

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start in src/mcp/server/auth/middleware/client_auth.py at authenticate_request and trace how the form fields and HTTP Basic credentials are parsed. Reproduce the token request with credentials only in the Authorization header, then verify that client_secret_basic authentication succeeds while mismatched credentials still produce the documented authentication error.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
python
Domain
api, authentication
Issue type
Bug
Difficulty
2/5
Estimated time
1-3 hours
Activity status
Active
Clarity
Clearly specified
Newbie friendliness
76/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.