diff --git a/clients/web/src/components/groups/ServerSettingsForm/ServerSettingsForm.tsx b/clients/web/src/components/groups/ServerSettingsForm/ServerSettingsForm.tsx
index 69e3b87e..fec3f25a 100644
--- a/clients/web/src/components/groups/ServerSettingsForm/ServerSettingsForm.tsx
+++ b/clients/web/src/components/groups/ServerSettingsForm/ServerSettingsForm.tsx
@@ -913,7 +913,7 @@ export function ServerSettingsForm({
               />
               <Checkbox
                 label="Request refresh token"
-                description={`Registers the refresh_token grant, so access tokens renew without a new sign-in. Uncheck it for authorization servers that reject the offline_access scope and forced consent prompt the grant brings with it. Applies on the next connect.${refreshTokenEmaNote}`}
+                description={`Declares the refresh_token grant, so the authorization server may issue a refresh token and renew access tokens without a new sign-in. Uncheck it for authorization servers that reject the offline_access scope and forced consent prompt the grant brings with it. Applies on the next connect.${refreshTokenEmaNote}`}
                 checked={settings.oauthRequestRefreshToken ?? true}
                 onChange={handleRequestRefreshTokenChange}
               />
diff --git a/clients/web/src/test/core/mcp/oauthManager.test.ts b/clients/web/src/test/core/mcp/oauthManager.test.ts
index eadca821..76a01e88 100644
--- a/clients/web/src/test/core/mcp/oauthManager.test.ts
+++ b/clients/web/src/test/core/mcp/oauthManager.test.ts
@@ -1213,6 +1213,24 @@ describe("OAuthManager", () => {
         );
         expect(sent?.split(/\s+/)).toContain("offline_access");
       });
+
+      // The mixed case, and the one that made the guard above insufficient:
+      // `enrichChallengeWithScopes` narrows `requiredScopes` to the *missing*
+      // subset, so a challenge requiring both — against a stored scope that
+      // already carries `offline_access` — arrives as just `["tools:write"]`.
+      // Reading the narrowed list treats the server's explicit requirement as
+      // inherited and strips it, and re-authorization then earns the same
+      // challenge forever.
+      it("preserves a required offline_access when the challenge also names a missing scope", async () => {
+        const sent = await scopeSentForChallenge(
+          "mcp offline_access",
+          "mcp",
+          ["offline_access", "tools:write"],
+          false,
+        );
+        expect(sent?.split(/\s+/)).toContain("offline_access");
+        expect(sent?.split(/\s+/)).toContain("tools:write");
+      });
     });
 
     it("short-circuits handleAuthChallenge when scope already satisfied", async () => {
diff --git a/core/mcp/oauthManager.ts b/core/mcp/oauthManager.ts
index 0f0b4727..c80033a5 100644
--- a/core/mcp/oauthManager.ts
+++ b/core/mcp/oauthManager.ts
@@ -804,7 +804,15 @@ export class OAuthManager {
         ? scopeForDeclinedRefreshGrant(
             requestedScopeForAuth,
             this.oauthConfig.scope,
-            enriched.requiredScopes,
+            // The RAW challenge scopes, not `enriched.requiredScopes`:
+            // `enrichChallengeWithScopes` narrows that to the *missing* subset,
+            // so a challenge requiring `offline_access tools:write` against a
+            // stored scope that already has `offline_access` arrives here as
+            // just `["tools:write"]`. Passing the narrowed list would read the
+            // server's explicit requirement as inherited and strip it — then
+            // re-authorization earns the same challenge forever, which is the
+            // loop this argument exists to prevent.
+            challenge.requiredScopes,
           )
         : requestedScopeForAuth;