Skip to content

docs(server): fix API-token link to /settings/api#61

Merged
johnxie merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/server-readme-token-url
Jun 27, 2026
Merged

docs(server): fix API-token link to /settings/api#61
johnxie merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/server-readme-token-url

Conversation

@johnxie

@johnxie johnxie commented Jun 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

packages/server/README.md (lines 26, 54) sent users to /settings/password to generate a Personal Access Token — the wrong page. Every other surface (root README §1, smithery.yaml, server.json) uses the canonical Settings > API → /settings/api. This aligns the package README. Docs-only, zero code.

cc @deanzaka @lxcid

packages/server/README.md pointed users at /settings/password to generate a
personal access token. The canonical location (root README, smithery.yaml,
server.json) is Settings > API → /settings/api. Fixes a dead-end for anyone
following the package README to get a token.
@johnxie
johnxie requested a review from Copilot June 27, 2026 15:44
@johnxie
johnxie merged commit dd45901 into main Jun 27, 2026
@changeset-bot

changeset-bot Bot commented Jun 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: b5635a9

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@johnxie
johnxie deleted the fix/server-readme-token-url branch June 27, 2026 15:44

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants