04dd6db7ae* feat: add new-sep scaffolding command Related #243. This commit adds the new-sep <NNNN> subcommand, which writes the file src/scenarios/<target>/sep-<NNNN>.yaml. This file contains the "sep", "spec_url", and "requirements" rows in the same style as sep-2164.yaml, with single quotes and two spaces. The spec source resolves in order: --spec-url → --spec-path → GitHub API against modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol (explicit --pr or title search for "SEP-NNNN"). The target directory is inferred from the spec path (`server/`, `client/`, or `basic/authorization*`); the --target flag overrides this. It refuses to overwrite without the --force flag. Token resolution reuses the "gh auth token" fallback pattern from tier-check. It also ships the .claude/skills/new-sep directory, which drives the CLI. It fetches the spec diff via "gh api" and extracts RFC 2119 sentences. There is a warning against regex-only matching. Bullets inherit keywords from their lead-in sentence. It rewrites the placeholder rows per the severity rules in AGENTS.md. MUST/SHALL/REQUIRED are checked for FAILURE. SHOULD is checked for WARNING. MAY/OPTIONAL are excluded. Signed-off-by: Satoshi Ito <satoshi.ito.tf@hitachi.com> * dropped --pr arg, list changed files, support multi-file seps w url override * Consolidate SEP yamls into src/seps/ and tighten yaml ordering - All sep-NNNN.yaml files now live in src/seps/ regardless of which scenario suite their checks run in - Drop --target / inferTarget; output dir is fixed - renderYaml: check rows emit `check:` first, excluded rows grouped at bottom with a blank-line separator - SKILL.md: document key/row ordering, expand exclusion-confirmation step - Move src/scenarios/server/sep-2164.yaml -> src/seps/ --------- Signed-off-by: Satoshi Ito <satoshi.ito.tf@hitachi.com> Co-authored-by: Paul Carleton <paulc@anthropic.com>
102 lines
6.5 KiB
Markdown
102 lines
6.5 KiB
Markdown
# AGENTS.md
|
||
|
||
Guidance for AI agents (and humans) contributing to the MCP conformance test framework.
|
||
|
||
## What this repo is
|
||
|
||
A test harness that exercises MCP SDK implementations against the protocol spec. The coverage number that matters here is **spec coverage** — how much of the protocol the scenarios test.
|
||
|
||
Uses **npm** (not pnpm/yarn). Don't commit `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `yarn.lock`.
|
||
|
||
## Where to start
|
||
|
||
**Open an issue first** — whether you've hit a bug in the harness or want to propose a new scenario. For scenarios, sketch which part of the spec you want to cover and roughly how; for bugs, include the command you ran and the output. Either way, a short discussion up front beats review churn on a PR that overlaps existing work or heads in a direction we're not going.
|
||
|
||
**Don't point an agent at the repo and ask it to "find bugs."** Generic bug-hunting on a test harness produces low-signal PRs (typo fixes, unused-variable cleanups, speculative refactors). If you want to contribute via an agent, give it a concrete target:
|
||
|
||
- Pick a specific MUST or SHOULD from the [MCP spec](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/) that has no scenario yet, and ask the agent to draft one.
|
||
- Pick an [open issue](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/conformance/issues) and work on that.
|
||
|
||
The valuable contribution here is **spec coverage**, not harness polish.
|
||
|
||
## Scenario design: fewer scenarios, more checks
|
||
|
||
**The strongest rule in this repo:** prefer one scenario with many checks over many scenarios with one check each.
|
||
|
||
Why:
|
||
|
||
- Each scenario often spins up its own HTTP server. These suites run in CI on every push for every SDK, so per-scenario overhead multiplies fast.
|
||
- Less code to maintain and update when the spec shifts.
|
||
- Progress on making an SDK better shows up as "pass 7/10 checks" rather than "pass 1 test, fail another" — finer-grained signal from the same run.
|
||
|
||
### Granularity heuristic
|
||
|
||
Ask: **"Would it make sense for someone to implement a server/client that does just this scenario?"**
|
||
|
||
If two scenarios would always be implemented together, merge them. Examples:
|
||
|
||
- `tools/list` + a simple `tools/call` → one scenario
|
||
- All content-type variants (image, audio, mixed, resource) → one scenario
|
||
- Full OAuth flow with token refresh → one scenario, not separate "basic" + "refresh" scenarios. A client that passes "basic" but not "refresh" just shows up as passing N−2 checks.
|
||
|
||
Keep scenarios separate when they're genuinely independent features or when they're mutually exclusive (e.g., an SDK should support writing a server that _doesn't_ implement certain stateful features).
|
||
|
||
### When a PR adds scenarios
|
||
|
||
- Start with **one end-to-end scenario** covering the happy path with many checks along the way.
|
||
- Don't add "step 1 only" and "step 1+2" as separate scenarios — the second subsumes the first.
|
||
- Register the scenario in the appropriate suite list in `src/scenarios/index.ts` (`core`, `extensions`, `backcompat`, etc.).
|
||
|
||
## Check conventions
|
||
|
||
- **Same `id` for SUCCESS and FAIL.** A check should use one slug and flip `status` + `errorMessage`, not branch into `foo-success` vs `foo-failure` slugs.
|
||
- **Optimize for Ctrl+F on the slug.** Repetitive check blocks are fine — easier to find the failing one than to unwind a clever helper.
|
||
- Reuse `ConformanceCheck` and other types from `src/types.ts` rather than defining parallel shapes.
|
||
- Include `specReferences` pointing to the relevant spec section.
|
||
- **Severity follows the spec keyword:** MUST / MUST NOT → `FAILURE`; SHOULD / SHOULD NOT → `WARNING`. (CI treats WARNING as a failure, so Tier-1 SDKs still need to satisfy SHOULDs — see #245.)
|
||
|
||
## Descriptions and wording
|
||
|
||
Be precise about what's **required** vs **optional**. A scenario description that tests optional behavior should make that clear — e.g. "Tests that a client _that wants a refresh token_ handles offline_access scope…" not "Tests that a client handles offline_access scope…". Don't accidentally promote a MAY/SHOULD to a MUST in the prose.
|
||
|
||
When in doubt about spec details (OAuth parameters, audiences, grant types), check the actual spec in `modelcontextprotocol` rather than guessing.
|
||
|
||
## Reviewing PRs
|
||
|
||
### SEP scenarios
|
||
|
||
Verify requirement levels against the SEP's **spec diff** — the change to `docs/specification/draft/` in the SEP's PR — not the SEP markdown summary or the conformance PR's description. The keyword that governs check severity is the one in the spec text; a bullet under a "Servers SHOULD…" sentence is SHOULD-level even if the SEP's title says "standardize."
|
||
|
||
```sh
|
||
gh api "repos/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/contents/docs/specification/draft/<path>?ref=<sep-branch>" --jq '.content' | base64 -d
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Adding a new SEP
|
||
|
||
Scaffold the requirement-traceability YAML with:
|
||
|
||
```sh
|
||
npx @modelcontextprotocol/conformance new-sep <NNNN>
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
The command looks up PR #`<NNNN>` in `modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol` (SEP numbers are PR numbers), derives `spec_url` from the `docs/specification/draft/*.mdx` file it changes, and writes `src/seps/sep-<NNNN>.yaml` with TODO `requirements[]` rows. Use `--spec-path` or `--spec-url` to skip the lookup. The `new-sep` Claude Code skill drives the same flow end-to-end, parses the spec diff, and fills in the requirement rows.
|
||
|
||
## Examples: prove it passes and fails
|
||
|
||
A new scenario should come with:
|
||
|
||
1. **A passing example** — usually by extending `examples/clients/typescript/everything-client.ts` or the everything-server, not a new file.
|
||
2. **A negative test** — a deliberately-broken implementation in `examples/{clients,servers}/typescript/` plus a vitest case asserting the check emits `FAILURE`/`WARNING` against it. See `src/scenarios/client/auth/index.test.ts` and `src/scenarios/server/negative.test.ts` for the pattern. A passing run against the everything-server proves the check doesn't false-positive, but not that it catches anything.
|
||
|
||
Delete unused example scenarios. If a scenario key in the everything-client has no corresponding test, remove it.
|
||
|
||
## Don't add new ways to run tests
|
||
|
||
Use the existing CLI runner (`npx @modelcontextprotocol/conformance client|server ...`). If you need a feature the runner doesn't have, add it to the runner rather than building a parallel entry point.
|
||
|
||
## Before opening a PR
|
||
|
||
- `npm run build` passes
|
||
- `npm test` passes
|
||
- For non-trivial scenario changes, run against at least one real SDK (typescript-sdk or python-sdk) to see actual output. For changes to shared infrastructure (runner, tier-check), test against go-sdk or csharp-sdk too.
|
||
- Scenario is registered in the right suite in `src/scenarios/index.ts`
|