## Motivation and Context
The MCP authorization specification and SEP-1046 allow confidential clients to
obtain tokens through the OAuth 2.1 `client_credentials` grant: a machine-to-machine flow
with no user, no browser redirect, and no authorization code. The Ruby SDK
previously supported only the interactive authorization-code flow, so it could not
authenticate against a server that requires `client_credentials`. This makes
the `auth/client-credentials-basic` conformance scenario pass and is removed from
the expected failures list.
Following the TypeScript SDK (`ClientCredentialsProvider`) and the Python SDK
(`ClientCredentialsOAuthProvider`), the grant gets its own provider class rather than
overloading the authorization-code provider. The change adds:
- `MCP::Client::OAuth::ClientCredentialsProvider`, a dedicated provider
for the grant. `client_id` and `client_secret` are mandatory
(the grant is for confidential clients), `token_endpoint_auth_method` is
`client_secret_basic` (default) or `client_secret_post` -- `none` is
rejected because an unauthenticated `client_credentials` request is
meaningless. It has no redirect arguments, so a credentials-only
client never supplies the redirect URI / handlers that grant has no use for.
- `MCP::Client::OAuth::StorageBackedProvider`, an internal module that
shares the token / client-information persistence between the two provider classes
so `Flow` can treat any provider uniformly.
- `Provider#authorization_flow` (`:authorization_code`) and
`ClientCredentialsProvider#authorization_flow` (`:client_credentials`).
`Flow#run!` dispatches on this rather than inspecting
`client_metadata[:grant_types]`, which is protocol metadata for
the authorization server, not an SDK control signal.
- `run_client_credentials!` shares the same PRM / AS metadata discovery
and Communication Security checks as the interactive flow, then
exchanges `grant_type=client_credentials` at the token endpoint via
the existing `post_to_token_endpoint` (which already applies
`client_secret_basic`). There is no PKCE, redirect, or `offline_access`
augmentation, because the grant does not issue a refresh token
(OAuth 2.1 Section 4.3.3).
- `conformance/client.rb` builds a `ClientCredentialsProvider` for
the `auth/client-credentials-*` scenarios, reusing the harness-injected
`client_id` / `client_secret`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
New `ClientCredentialsProvider` tests cover: credentials are stored as
client information; `authorization_flow` is `:client_credentials`;
`client_secret_post` is accepted; missing `client_id` / `client_secret`
and `token_endpoint_auth_method: "none"` are rejected; and the token helpers
delegate to storage.
New `Flow` tests cover: a `client_credentials` provider exchanges
`grant_type=client_credentials` with HTTP Basic auth, saves the token,
and never contacts the authorization or registration endpoint;
the requested scope is taken from PRM `scopes_supported`; and a standard
`Provider` runs the authorization-code grant regardless of what its
`client_metadata[:grant_types]` lists. A `Provider` test asserts
`authorization_flow` is `:authorization_code`.
Conformance: `auth/client-credentials-basic` now passes 7/7 with no failures.
## Breaking Changes
None. `ClientCredentialsProvider` is a new class; the existing `Provider` keeps
its required `redirect_uri` / `redirect_handler` / `callback_handler` arguments
and its behaviour is unchanged. Existing interactive clients are unaffected.
2289db84f8