fix(mcp): align env token precedence with the documented order

[nghetienhiep]

fix(mcp): align env token precedence with the documented order

getEnvApiToken() resolved LOOPOVER_TOKEN ahead of LOOPOVER_MCP_TOKEN, the
opposite of the precedence documented everywhere else. The README, printHelp,
the missing-auth error, and the diagnostic sanitizer list all read
"LOOPOVER_API_TOKEN, LOOPOVER_MCP_TOKEN, LOOPOVER_TOKEN" -- getEnvApiToken was
the single outlier, so a user setting the MCP-specific token got the generic
LOOPOVER_TOKEN instead when both were present.

Fix the code to match the documented order (API > MCP > TOKEN) and pin the
exact runtime precedence with a test that observes which token the CLI actually
sends as the Authorization header.

Closes #6262

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 03:05:23 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 100/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a minimal, well-targeted one-line precedence fix: getEnvApiToken() now resolves LOOPOVER_API_TOKEN > LOOPOVER_MCP_TOKEN > LOOPOVER_TOKEN, matching the documented order everywhere else in the codebase. The new test file directly observes the Authorization header sent by the CLI across all three precedence combinations (API>MCP>TOKEN, MCP>TOKEN, TOKEN-only), which is a real end-to-end assertion against the actual request path rather than a fabricated unit check. The fix closes #6262 and is scoped tightly to the bug.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The inline comment in loopover-mcp.js is fairly long for a one-line change; a shorter comment referencing the doc order would suffice.
• The test file doesn't explicitly assert the reverse regression case (MCP_TOKEN alone without TOKEN set), though the three cases shown do adequately cover the precedence chain.
• Consider trimming the comment in getEnvApiToken() to a single line since the PR description already explains the rationale in full.
• Possible secret-shaped assignment in the diff (generic_secret_assignment) — Verify the value is not a real credential.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6262
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 112 registered-repo PR(s), 64 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	nghetienhiep; Gittensor profile; 112 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The code fix changes getEnvApiToken() precedence to LOOPOVER_API_TOKEN ?? LOOPOVER_MCP_TOKEN ?? LOOPOVER_TOKEN, matching the documented order, and a new test suite pins the exact precedence by observing the Authorization header sent for each combination of env vars.

Review context

• Author: nghetienhiep
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 112 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.60%. Comparing base (d4a2c64) to head (5f702b3).
⚠️ Report is 28 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6342   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.60%   95.60%           
=======================================
  Files         597      597           
  Lines       47185    47185           
  Branches    15017    15017           
=======================================
  Hits        45113    45113           
  Misses       1290     1290           
  Partials      782      782           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	44.16% <ø> (ø)
shard-2	36.40% <ø> (-0.13%)	⬇️
shard-3	32.54% <ø> (+0.12%)	⬆️
shard-4	34.63% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
shard-5	31.58% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-6	44.86% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.