## Motivation and Context
When a server publishes no Protected Resource Metadata, discovery takes the legacy 2025-03-26 path and `prm` is `nil`.
The authorization-code branch of `run!` allowed for that by passing `prm || {}` to `resolve_scope`,
but `run_client_credentials!` and `run_jwt_bearer!` passed `prm` as is, and `resolve_scope` then
called `prm["scopes_supported"]` on `nil`. Without a non-empty challenge scope, a `ClientCredentialsProvider` or
`CrossAppAccessProvider` pointed at such a server therefore failed with `NoMethodError` after discovery and before
the token request or the ID-JAG callback, instead of running its grant against the legacy authorization base
the way `Provider` does.
`resolve_scope` now treats a missing PRM as advertising no scopes, so the challenge scope or the provider's own scope applies,
and the authorization-code branch passes `prm` unchanged like the other two.
## How Has This Been Tested?
New tests in `test/mcp/client/oauth/flow_test.rb` run the `client_credentials` grant against a PRM-less server with metadata
at the origin, checking the provider's scope, the `resource`, and the recorded issuer, and run the `jwt-bearer` grant against
a server without any metadata, checking the default token endpoint, the assertion audience, the `resource`, and the recorded
issuer. Both raise `NoMethodError` against the previous library.
## Breaking Changes
None.
29e8d3f2b9