* docs: rename CONTRIBUTORS.md to CONTRIBUTING.md (#1883) GitHub's contributing-guidelines banner — shown when someone clicks "New issue" or opens a pull request — keys on the exact filename CONTRIBUTING.md. Naming the file CONTRIBUTORS.md left that prompt dark precisely where the "open an issue, not a PR" policy needs to land. Renamed with `git mv` so history follows the file; contents are unchanged (its heading already reads "Contributing to MCP Inspector"). Updated the one in-repo reference, in AGENTS.md. The two links in .github/pull_request_template.md are deliberately untouched — PR #1879 makes them relative so they follow the rename. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YAt8rqxysNbhYWLhoRm3fU * docs: drop the AGENTS.md link edit; #1866 owns that line This PR edited the `See [CONTRIBUTORS.md](./CONTRIBUTORS.md)` link in AGENTS.md, which is the exact line #1866 rewrites — guaranteeing a one-line conflict when this merges after it. Handing that line to its owner instead: #1866 now writes the link as `CONTRIBUTING.md` directly, so this PR is a pure `git mv` and the two touch no common line. No conflict to resolve at merge time. The tradeoff is a short window between the two merges where AGENTS.md links to a filename that doesn't exist yet. That's deliberate and bounded: #1866 is first in the merge order and this is third. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YAt8rqxysNbhYWLhoRm3fU --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
142 lines
6.9 KiB
Markdown
142 lines
6.9 KiB
Markdown
# Contributing to MCP Inspector
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your interest in improving the MCP Inspector. Contributors are
|
|
genuinely valued — the goal of this document is to channel your input into a
|
|
form we can act on quickly and consistently.
|
|
|
|
## TL;DR
|
|
|
|
**We accept issues, not pull requests.** Design and implementation are done by
|
|
the maintainers. If you've already built a fix or feature locally, share **the
|
|
prompt you used** to produce it — not the source code. This applies to everyone
|
|
outside the repo maintainers, including organization members who happen to have
|
|
write access to this repository.
|
|
|
|
## Why this policy exists
|
|
|
|
The Inspector v2 is developed with an AI-assisted, prompt-driven workflow built
|
|
around a consistent architecture, a shared design system, and strict testing
|
|
gates (see [`AGENTS.md`](./AGENTS.md)). Every component follows the same
|
|
conventions: "dumb" components that take data and callbacks as props, Mantine
|
|
for all UI, theme variants instead of ad-hoc CSS, and a uniform per-file
|
|
coverage gate of ≥ 90% on lines, statements, functions, and branches.
|
|
|
|
Accepting raw source PRs creates friction: a diff written outside this pipeline
|
|
has to be reverse-engineered to fit our component/theme conventions, coverage
|
|
gates, and review process — often it's faster to re-derive the change than to
|
|
adapt the patch. Capturing your **intent** (a well-formed issue) or the
|
|
**prompt** that generated your local change lets us reproduce the work inside
|
|
our own workflow and standards, with the quality bar already baked in.
|
|
|
|
This policy is about efficiency, not gatekeeping. Your ideas, bug reports, and
|
|
prompts directly shape what gets built. And if you'd like to contribute more
|
|
than an issue, see
|
|
[Want to work on the Inspector with us?](#want-to-work-on-the-inspector-with-us)
|
|
below — we'd rather bring you into the workflow than turn you away.
|
|
|
|
## Who opens pull requests
|
|
|
|
Pull requests against this repository are opened by the **repo maintainers**
|
|
only. That includes organization members with write access: being able to push
|
|
a branch here isn't the same as being asked to — the constraint is the workflow
|
|
described above, not permissions, so the same policy applies whether or not
|
|
GitHub would let you click the button.
|
|
|
|
If you're not a repo maintainer, open a **detailed issue** instead and a
|
|
maintainer will pick it up. If you've already prototyped the change locally,
|
|
say so in the issue and include the prompt you used (see
|
|
[If you've already fixed it locally](#if-youve-already-fixed-it-locally)) —
|
|
that's the fastest path from your work to a merged change.
|
|
|
|
**Every pull request references an issue**, including the maintainers' own. The
|
|
PR body's first line is `Closes #<ISSUE_NUMBER>`. Work is tracked on the project
|
|
board through issues, so a PR without one is invisible to the board — which is
|
|
why a well-formed issue is the useful contribution here, and why writing one is
|
|
never wasted effort.
|
|
|
|
## How to contribute a bug report or feature request
|
|
|
|
Open a well-formed issue describing the bug or the feature you have in mind.
|
|
A great issue gives us everything we need to act on it without a round-trip —
|
|
see [What makes a good issue or prompt submission](#what-makes-a-good-issue-or-prompt-submission)
|
|
below. That's the whole process: you describe the intent, we handle the design
|
|
and implementation.
|
|
|
|
### Which version and label?
|
|
|
|
The Inspector is maintained across two versions, each with its own base branch
|
|
and version label. File your issue against the version your report or request
|
|
targets:
|
|
|
|
| Version | Base branch | Label | npm tag |
|
|
| ------- | ----------- | ----- | ------------ |
|
|
| v1 | `v1/main` | `v1` | `v1-latest` |
|
|
| v2 | `v2/main` | `v2` | `latest` |
|
|
|
|
- **v1** (`v1/main`) is the legacy Inspector — it takes **security fixes
|
|
only**, and is published straight from that branch to the `v1-latest` npm
|
|
tag (`npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector@v1-latest`).
|
|
- **v2** (`v2/main`) is where all current work happens — when in doubt, target
|
|
v2. `v2/main` is the develop branch; it is merged into `main` at milestone
|
|
releases, and `main` is what publishes the `latest` npm tag. Nothing targets
|
|
`main` directly.
|
|
|
|
**Label by version.** Every issue (and the PRs maintainers open for it) must
|
|
carry the label matching the target branch — `v1` for `v1/main` and `v2` for
|
|
`v2/main`. This mirrors the "Label by version" convention documented in
|
|
[`AGENTS.md`](./AGENTS.md).
|
|
|
|
## If you've already fixed it locally
|
|
|
|
Please don't send a diff or open a pull request. Instead, open an issue that
|
|
includes:
|
|
|
|
- **The prompt(s) you used** to generate the change — the exact text, so we can
|
|
reproduce it through our own workflow.
|
|
- **A description of the behavior before and after** your change.
|
|
- **How you verified it** (steps you ran, tests you added, what you observed).
|
|
|
|
We'll reproduce the change through our pipeline so it lands with the right
|
|
conventions, tests, and coverage.
|
|
|
|
## What makes a good issue or prompt submission
|
|
|
|
A great submission gives us everything we need to act without a round-trip:
|
|
|
|
- **Clear reproduction or use case** — exact steps to reproduce a bug, or a
|
|
concrete description of the feature and the problem it solves.
|
|
- **Expected vs. actual behavior** — what you saw, and what you expected
|
|
instead.
|
|
- **Affected client** — which incarnation is involved: **Web**, **TUI**, or
|
|
**CLI** (or "all" / "core" if it's shared logic).
|
|
- **Environment details** when relevant — OS, Node version, the MCP server you
|
|
were inspecting, and any relevant config.
|
|
- **The exact prompt text**, if you generated a local change and want us to
|
|
reproduce it.
|
|
|
|
## Want to work on the Inspector with us?
|
|
|
|
The issues-only policy is about how **unsolicited patches** are handled — it is
|
|
not a closed door. If you want to contribute at a deeper level, either in
|
|
general or in a specific area, we'd genuinely like to hear from you:
|
|
|
|
- **Join the [MCP Contributor Discord](https://discord.gg/6CSzBmMkjX)** and say
|
|
hello in **`#inspector-dev`**. That's where day-to-day Inspector development
|
|
is discussed and the fastest way to reach the maintainers.
|
|
- **Attend the community calls** at
|
|
[meet.modelcontextprotocol.io](https://meet.modelcontextprotocol.io/) — see
|
|
[Contributor Communication](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/community/communication)
|
|
for the full set of channels and how they're used.
|
|
|
|
From there we can scope a piece of work with you and supervise it through our
|
|
workflow — which is also the path toward becoming a maintainer. What we want to
|
|
avoid is drive-by diffs that have to be reverse-engineered into our pipeline;
|
|
what we want to encourage is sustained, coordinated contribution.
|
|
|
|
All participation is governed by the MCP
|
|
[Code of Conduct](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md).
|
|
|
|
## Questions
|
|
|
|
If you're unsure how to scope something, open the issue anyway and say so —
|
|
we'll help shape it. Thanks for helping make the Inspector better.
|