"Connect button" OAuth flow does not honor scopes_supported like Auth Settings does

[kentcdodds]

Describe the bug

When clicking the "Connect" button, I get directed to the following URL:

http://localhost:7788/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=Rij0zh4k25bDqoEK&code_challenge=BsNpWG9XLzR5yzX3oUh8gjgO2njve1ZBujPl_u7LxHk&code_challenge_method=S256&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A8079%2Foauth%2Fcallback&resource=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A60079%2Fmcp

When clicking the "Quick Auth Flow" button, I get directed to the following URL:

http://localhost:7788/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=M7zNX0l9922ofiCL&code_challenge=yGWrmL0UFvSYLTgP-gba5aoenaMJmAfXie-3EGMGQh8&code_challenge_method=S256&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A8079%2Foauth%2Fcallback%2Fdebug&scope=read+write&resource=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A60079%2Fmcp

Here's a more clear diff view of those URLs:

http://localhost:7788/authorize?
  response_type=code
  client_id=M7zNX0l9922ofiCL
  code_challenge=yGWrmL0UFvSYLTgP-gba5aoenaMJmAfXie-3EGMGQh8
  code_challenge_method=S256
  redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A8079%2Foauth%2Fcallback%2Fdebug
+ scope=read+write
  resource=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A60079%2Fmcp

(note, the client_id, code_challenge, and redirect_uri are also different, but I don't see that as being an issue).

The particular bother for me is the lack of scope when clicking "Connect"

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Have an MCP server that includes scope as part of the WWW-Authenticated header, scopes_supported in the resource server metadata (e.g. /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp), and scopes_supported in the authorization server metadata (e.g. /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server).
2. Click "Connect" and notice the lack of scope
3. Click "Quick Auth Flow" (or go through it manually) and notice the presence of scope.

Expected behavior

I expect them to be the same (and prefer them to use the scope specified).

[cliffhall]

@kentcdodds Which version of the Inspector are you using?

[kentcdodds]

The latest at the time of the post. Let me check again with the latest now.

[kentcdodds]

Seems to be working as expected now. Not certain what changed, but I'm good! Thanks!

[cliffhall]

Seems to be working as expected now. Not certain what changed, but I'm good! Thanks!

@kentcdodds I did a bunch of work on that for 0.16.5, and I thought that it might have addressed it, but I just wanted to be sure. Thanks for retesting and confirming it's good.

[kentcdodds]

Thanks!