[FEATURE] Allow custom naming of OAuth authorization tokens in claude.ai settings
Preflight Checklist
- [x] I have searched existing requests and this feature hasn't been requested yet
- [x] This is a single feature request (not multiple features)
Problem Statement
When using Claude Code on multiple machines (e.g., laptop, dev server, production server), each device creates an OAuth authorization token listed at claude.ai/settings/claude-code under "Manage your authorization tokens."
All tokens are displayed with the same generic name "Claude Code", with the only distinguishing information being the "Connected" timestamp. This makes it difficult to:
- Identify which token belongs to which machine
- Revoke the correct token when a machine is reinstalled or decommissioned
- Manage tokens as the number of devices grows
Proposed Solution
Allow users to assign a custom label/name to each authorization token, either:
- During login — e.g.,
claude login --name "prod-server"or a prompt asking for a device name during the OAuth flow - In the claude.ai settings UI — an edit/rename button next to each token in the list
- Both
The token list would then display something like:
Claude Code — prod-server Connected 2 months ago
Claude Code — dev-server Connected 3 weeks ago
Claude Code — laptop Connected 1 day ago
If no custom name is provided, it falls back to the current behavior ("Claude Code").
Alternative Solutions
Current Workaround
Memorizing or manually noting the "Connected" timestamp for each device to identify tokens. This is error-prone, especially when multiple tokens are created around the same time.
Priority
Medium - Would be very helpful
Feature Category
CLI commands and flags
Use Case Example
_No response_
Additional Context
Note: This is distinct from session naming requests (#5357, #2112, #11408, #6006, #15576), which are about naming CLI conversation sessions. This request is specifically about the OAuth token management UI on claude.ai.
Side note: claude.ai helped to write the text for this Feature Request
This issue has 2 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗