Commit graph registry/docs/design
Author SHA1 Message Date
Radoslav Dimitrov
a25f166b4b
docs: remove stale complete.md and fix remaining stale references (#1522)
Deletes `complete.md` and cleans up the last references to the
pre-restructuring docs layout.

## Why `complete.md` goes

It is 2,944 lines (31% of all documentation lines in the repo)
self-described as *"all documentation from the docs/ directory compiled
into a single markdown file"*. But:

- **No generator exists.** No make target, no workflow, no script. `grep
-rn "complete\.md"` finds **zero** references anywhere in the repo.
- **It mirrors a docs tree that no longer exists** — `docs/guides/`,
`docs/explanations/`, `docs/concepts/`.
- **All 72 of its relative links are broken**, and six of the basenames
it references exist nowhere in the repo.
- **~14 current docs are missing from it entirely** (`about.mdx`,
`authentication.mdx`, `package-types.mdx`, both CHANGELOGs, ...).
- **Its `server.json` examples pin the superseded `2025-07-09` schema**
(current is `2025-12-11`).

The strongest argument is its own last commit. [PR
#1278](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/1278)
closed [issue
#767](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/767) — a
real user-reported CLI flag bug — by editing **only `complete.md`**. A
genuine fix landed in a file nobody reads, while the docs a reader would
actually find stayed wrong.

A generated file with no generator degrades into a trap: authoritative
enough that people edit it, with nothing validating it. If the
LLM-consumption use case is worth keeping, the right shape is a `make
docs-bundle` target plus a `check-docs-bundle` CI job mirroring the
existing `check-schema` pattern — happy to do that instead if you would
rather keep it.

## Remaining stale references

| File | Was | Now |
|---|---|---|
| `contributing/add-package-registry.md` | Add
`docs/guides/publishing/publish-[yourregistry].md`, update
`docs/guides/publishing/README.md` | Add a section to
`package-types.mdx`. These were the **last live references** to the
obsolete `docs/guides/` layout outside `complete.md` |
| `administration/maintainer-onboarding.md` | Add them to "Current key
maintainers" in README | "Registry Working Group" — the section that
actually exists |
| `reference/README.md` | Omitted 6 reference docs | Adds
`api/extensions.md`, `api/openapi.yaml`, `api/CHANGELOG.md`,
`server-json/CHANGELOG.md`, `server-json/CONTRIBUTING.md`,
`server-json/draft/` |
| `docs/README.md` | Index omitted `community-projects.md` | Listed |
| `reference/api/generic-registry-api.md` | `PUT .../versions/{version}`
"not implemented by official registry" | It **is** implemented
([edit.go:36](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/blob/main/internal/api/handlers/v0/edit.go#L36)),
and `official-registry-api.md` already lists it as an admin endpoint |
| `reference/api/official-registry-api.md` | Omitted 3 registered routes
| Adds `POST /v0.1/validate` (which `mcp-publisher validate` calls),
`GET /v0.1/ping`, `GET /v0.1/version`, and notes these plus `/health`
are absent from `openapi.yaml` |
| `server-json/official-registry-requirements.md` | Per-registry
verification → `quickstart.mdx` | → `package-types.mdx`, which has an
Ownership Verification section per registry |
| `design/design-principles.md` | Sections 1,2,3,4,**6**,7 | Renumbered
1–6 |
| `contributing/releasing.md` | Steps 1,2,3,**5**,6 | Renumbered 1–5 |

I left the sibling `DELETE` claim in `generic-registry-api.md` alone —
it is accurate, no DELETE route is registered (the `http.MethodDelete`
hit in `server.go` is CORS config, not a route).

## Staleness banners rather than rewrites

**`design/tech-architecture.md`** is substantially fictional. Rather
than a vague "may be outdated", the banner lists what I verified is
wrong:

- Describes Helm-chart deployment; the registry is a plain `Deployment`
([registry.go:65](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/blob/main/deploy/pkg/k8s/registry.go#L65)).
Helm is used only for third-party components.
- Diagram shows a `StatefulSet` on port **27017** — MongoDB's port. The
DB is PostgreSQL on 5432 via the CloudNativePG operator.
- Documents a `verify-domain` challenge flow (`POST /verify-domain`,
`/verify-domain/check`, server-issued tokens) that **was never built**.
- Documents `/admin/*` routes that are not registered.
- Says the DB stores user auth state and DNS verification records; only
`servers` and `server_extensions` tables exist.

**`design/roadmap.md`** still says "Phase 1: MVP/Go-Live (Current
Focus)" ~11 months after launch. I added a dated note rather than
inventing a current phase — that is a working-group call.

## Verification

All **101** remaining relative links across every `.md`/`.mdx` in the
repo resolve. The only two non-resolving matches are the intentional
`[project-name](link)` template placeholder and the moderation link
fixed in #1518.

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-10 16:32:37 +03:00
deerajkumar18
b5f38fcc2a
update schema url point to the actual location (#884)
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->

## Motivation and Context
This PR ensures that the draft URL points to the actual draft schema 
improvement suggested in
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/814


## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->

## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->

## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update

## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed

## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
2026-02-10 13:32:58 -08:00
Bob Dickinson
fc88cf0870
Enhanced server.json validation (phase 1) (#636)
Added schema validation and support for exhaustive and more detailed
validation to existing validators. Added new `mcp-publisher validate`
command. No change to any existing tests or behavior other than the new
command.

## Motivation and Context

Many currently published servers fail schema validation. Of those that
pass, many have semantic/logical errors or other errors that make them
impossible to configure, or their configuration when applied doesn't
generate correct MCP server configuration (per their own documentation).

To address this, we need better tooling to validate servers and to
inform server publishers of errors, issues, and best practices in a way
that is clear and actionable, both during server development and at time
of publishing.

I have started a discussion about the broader topic:
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/discussions/635

There is also a fairly detailed document describing the design,
architecture, implementation, future plans, etc. See [Enhanced
Validation Design](docs/explanations/proposed-enhanced-validation.md)

This PR is the first step in the process of improving validation. It
adds schema validation and updates all existing validators to use a new
model that allows them to track context and return rich and exhaustive
results. This has been done in a way that is backward compatible
(ValidateServerJSON is unchanged as are all existing validation unit
tests).

There is a new `mcp-publisher` command called `validate` that is
currenty the only place that schema validation and enhanced
(exhaustive/rich) validation results are exposed.

### Changes

Internal Validation improvements
- Schema validation has been implemented and is available as an option
in validation methods (defaults to off)
- Existing validators track the JSON path (context) of the attribute
they're evaluating, passing it to any child validators
- Existing validators are exhaustive (return all issues, not failing
fast on the first error)
- Existing validators return rich validation results, including:
  - type (schema, semantic, linter)
  - severity (error, warn, info)
  - path (JSON path to server.json element)
  - reference (to the schema element or rule that triggered the result)
  - message (currently the same as previous error message)

A new `validate` command has been added to `mcp-publisher` so publishers
can evaluate their server.json before publishing
- Includes new schema validation and previous semantic validation
- Shows full details of all issues encountered during validation

### Usage

Given a server.json that looks like this:

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://static.modelcontextprotocol.io/schemas/2025-09-29/server.schema.json",
  "name": "io.github.BobDickinson/registry",
  "description": "An MCP server that provides [describe what your server does]",
  "repository": {
    "url": "",
    "source": ""
  },
  "version": "=1.0.0",
  "packages": [
    {
      "registryType": "oci",
      "registryBaseUrl": "https://docker.io",
      "identifier": "registry",
      "version": "1.0.0",
      "transport": {
        "type": "sse"
      },
      "packageArguments": [
        {
          "type": "named",
          "name": "--mode",
          "description": "Operation mode",
          "format": "foo"
        }
      ],
      "environmentVariables": [
        {
          "description": "Your API key for the service",
          "isRequired": true,
          "format": "string",
          "isSecret": true,
          "name": "YOUR_API_KEY"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}
```

Run the command: 

`mcp-publisher validate server.json`

Which will produce the output:

```bash
❌ Validation failed with 5 issue(s):

1. [error] packages.0.packageArguments.0.format (schema)
   value must be one of "string", "number", "boolean", "filepath"
   Reference: #/definitions/Input/properties/format/enum from: [#/definitions/ServerDetail]/properties/packages/items/[#/definitions/Package]/properties/packageArguments/items/[#/definitions/Argument]/else/[#/definitions/NamedArgument]/allOf/0/[#/definitions/InputWithVariables]/allOf/0/[#/definitions/Input]/properties/format/enum

2. [error] packages.0.transport (schema)
   missing required fields: 'url'
   Reference: #/definitions/SseTransport/required from: [#/definitions/ServerDetail]/properties/packages/items/[#/definitions/Package]/properties/transport/else/else/[#/definitions/SseTransport]/required

3. [error] repository.url (schema)
   '' has invalid format 'uri'
   Reference: #/definitions/Repository/properties/url/format from: [#/definitions/ServerDetail]/properties/repository/[#/definitions/Repository]/properties/url/format

4. [error] version (semantic)
   version must be a specific version, not a range: "=1.0.0"
   Reference: version-looks-like-range

5. [error] packages[0].transport.url (semantic)
   url is required for sse transport type
   Reference: streamable-transport-url-required

Error: validation failed
```

Note in the results above:
- All errors contain the JSON path of the triggering element from
server.json.
- The first three errors are schema errors detected during schema
validation. The `Reference` provided contains an absolute path to the
schema rule that was violated, followed by the full schema path that
enforced that rule (with $ref redirect values substited and enclosed in
square brackets).
- The error messages provided by the existing semantic validators are
exactly the same as the previous error messages those validators
produced.

In the final solution we would remove semantic validators that are
redundant to schema validation (as in number 5 above). We have the
option to use the structured data produced by schema validation to
replace the generic schema validation message with a more descriptive
message if that is an issue (in particular, if the only argument for an
ad-hoc validator is that is produces a better/cleaner message, we would
just move that message creation code to the schema error result
formatter and special case it as opposed to having a redundant
validator).

### What's Next

If this general direction is supported and this PR is accepted, a fast
follow would include:

- Add new validators (infliuenced by observed issues) for both semantic
errors and best practices
- Require passing schema validation (in addition to improved semantic
validation) in order to publish
- Remove existing validation code that is redundant to schema validation
(ensuring error messages remain intelligible)
- Update validation client code and tests to handle the new rich return
types natively

### Issues

Schema validation requires embedding the `server.schema.json` file into
the validators package via `go:embed`, which is restricted from
embedding files outside of the package. For this reason we copy the
schema file into a schema subdir (via a prep target in the makefile) and
we .gitignore it. I tried cleaning up the copy in the make clean target,
but then the linter would complain about the embed target being missing
if it wasn't there during development. I also considered just checking
in the schema file and assuming a separate workflow for updating the
embedded schema file, but it's not clear what that workflow would be or
how it would be maintained. I'm open to a different approach, but the
schema file does need to be embedded somehow for schema validation to
work.

## How Has This Been Tested?
All existing validation tests pass, new tests implemented and all pass.

## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes, no behavior change except new `validate` command

## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [X] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update

## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [X] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [X] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [X] New and existing tests pass locally
- [X] I have added appropriate error handling
- [X] I have added or updated documentation as needed

---------

Co-authored-by: GitHub Action <action@github.com>
2026-01-16 00:49:39 +02:00
Tadas Antanavicius
65b96b03ce
docs: update API endpoint documentation from /v0/ to /v0.1/ (#802)
Update all documentation to reference the stable `/v0.1/` API version
instead of the development `/v0/` version.

Didn't update internal references (e.g. in admin-only docs) as that
probably make sense to keep pointed at v0 as the "dev" option.

Authored by Claude Code, reviewed by me.

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2025-12-04 13:02:45 -08:00
Jonathan Hefner
43d41a242e
Prepare docs for modelcontextprotocol.io (#728)
This PR reorganizes and extends the existing documentation in
preparation for publishing on https://modelcontextprotocol.io/.

The current plan is for docs to remain in this repo, and be synced to
the `modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol` whenever necessary
(e.g., accompanying a release of the registry). I have included a script
in
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/1725
(`bin/pull-registry-docs.sh`) that can be run manually to perform the
sync.

If we later decide to permanently move the docs to the
`modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol` repo, that also works.

This PR puts all https://modelcontextprotocol.io/ docs into
`docs/modelcontextprotocol-io/`. Docs outside that subdirectory, such as
`docs/administration/admin-operations.md`, are intended to be accessible
solely via this repo. One major exception is the
`docs/reference/server-json/` subdirectory, which will depend on the
resolution of
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/issues/1649.
However, I think we could address that in a follow-up PR.

---------

Co-authored-by: Adam Jones <adamj+git@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2025-11-18 17:22:31 +00:00