## Summary
When the OCI validator's anonymous manifest fetch returns HTTP 429,
return a retryable error instead of `nil`. This aligns OCI with the
fail-closed behavior of the npm / PyPI / NuGet / MCPB validators, and
ensures the `io.modelcontextprotocol.server.name` label-match always
runs before a publish is accepted.
## Test plan
- [x] `go test ./internal/validators/registries/ -run TestValidateOCI`
passes locally
- [x] `gofmt` + `golangci-lint` clean on the changed file
- [ ] CI green
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adds support for the Quay.io container registry to the OCI validator.
This allows MCP servers hosted on Quay.io to be registered and validated
by the official registry.
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Quay.io is a major, trusted public OCI registry widely used by the
cloud-native and open-source communities. Currently, attempting to
publish a server using a Quay image results in an unsupported OCI
registry error. This change enables developers to use Quay.io as a
first-class hosting option for their MCP server images.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
- **Unit Tests:** Updated `internal/validators/registries/oci_test.go`
to transition Quay.io from a rejected test case to an allowed one.
- **Pattern Matching:** Verified that the allowlist correctly handles
both specific image identifiers and general pattern matching for the
`quay.io` host.
- **Local Validation:** Ran `make check` to ensure no regressions in the
existing OCI validation logic.
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
No. This is an additive change that expands the allowlist of supported
registries. Existing configurations are unaffected.
## 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)
- [x] 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
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
The implementation follows the existing pattern for OCI registries:
1. Added a `RegistryURLQuay` constant to `pkg/model` for consistency.
2. Hardcoded `quay.io` into the `allowedOCIRegistries` map in the
validator to minimize architectural complexity.
3. Updated all relevant documentation files (`package-types.mdx`,
`generic-server-json.md`, and `official-registry-requirements.md`) to
ensure the source of truth is updated across the project.
4. Validation remains scoped to public images; no private registry
authentication was added for this host.
Signed-off-by: Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel@olasagasti.info>
Co-authored-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
Microsoft uses `mcr.microsoft.com` to host our public containers. These
are syndicated to Docker Hub but image references use
`mcr.microsoft.com` which is not currently supported by the Official MCP
Registry.
See https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/753.
Microsoft teams want to use MCR-based images for Microsoft MCP servers.
I believe we should be adding ACR support as well, so that our customers
using Azure Container Registry can use the MCP Registry as well.
In short, MCR is used for Microsoft managed containers. ACR is a
solution for Azure customers to host their own containers.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Unit tests.
Manual test: local push of a server.json with
`mcr.microsoft.com/azure-sdk/azure-mcp:2.0.0-beta.1` and
`azurearcjumpstart.azurecr.io/hello-arc:latest` in it. The error is now
about missing annotation not unsupported OCI registry.
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
No.
## 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
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR:
* Deprecates the existing OCI reference parser
* Deprecates the existing OCI way of authenticating and accessing the
image manifest
* Replaces the above by leveraging go-containerregistry
* Introduces support for Google Artifact Registry
* Enables us to easily add support for other OCI-compliant registries in
the future
* Introduces better error handling
* Introduces custom context timeouts for validation
## 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: -->
- [ ] 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. -->
- [ ] 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
-->
Related to #427
---------
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR addresses the feedback from #634 around:
* Use a proper library - https://github.com/distribution/reference,
instead of the implementing the OCI parsing ourselves (note: left the
tests so we can ensure we are not breaking any existing behavior)
* Updating one of the error messages to now assume MCPB.
## 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: -->
- [ ] 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
-->
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
Package identifier and version are required for some of the registries
else we won't be able to pull the meta data to validate the packages.
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
This is in continuation to
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/424
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Unit test.
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
No
## 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)
- [ ] 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
-->
Co-authored-by: Avish Porwal <avishporwal@microsoft.com>
This commit implements support for publishing MCP servers to GitHub
Container
Registry (ghcr.io) in addition to the existing Docker Hub support,
addressing
Docker Hub rate limiting concerns as requested in #393.
Key changes:
- Add RegistryURLGHCR constant for https://ghcr.io
- Refactor OCI validation to support multiple container registries with
extensible RegistryConfig system
- Implement registry-agnostic authentication system that handles:
- Docker Hub token-based authentication via auth.docker.io
- GHCR token-based authentication via ghcr.io/token service
- Update Accept headers to support OCI image indexes for multi-arch
images
- Extract helper functions to reduce cyclomatic complexity and improve
code maintainability
- Add comprehensive test coverage for both Docker Hub and GHCR scenarios
- Include real image testing with github/github-mcp-server and
nkapila6/mcp-local-rag
- Update publishing documentation with GHCR examples and authentication
details
The implementation maintains backward compatibility with existing Docker
Hub
usage while providing a future-proof architecture for adding additional
container registries. All authentication is now handled through proper
token
services for both registries.
Fixes#393
## Motivation and Context
Docker Hub rate limiting has been causing issues for the MCP registry
when validating OCI images. Adding GHCR support provides an alternative
container registry that many MCP server authors are already using,
reducing the load on Docker Hub and providing more options for the
community.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- All existing unit tests continue to pass
- Added comprehensive test coverage for GHCR scenarios including:
- Non-existent images (proper error handling)
- Real images without MCP annotations (github/github-mcp-server)
- Real images with proper MCP annotations (nkapila6/mcp-local-rag)
- Registry URL validation for both supported registries
- Tested authentication flow manually using curl commands
- Verified multi-arch image support with OCI index manifests
## Breaking Changes
None. This is a purely additive change that maintains full backward
compatibility with existing Docker Hub configurations.
## Types of changes
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [x] Documentation update
## Checklist
- [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
## Additional context
The implementation uses a RegistryConfig struct to abstract
registry-specific details like API endpoints, authentication URLs, and
token services. This design makes it straightforward to add support for
additional container registries in the future (such as AWS ECR, Azure
Container Registry, etc.) by simply adding new cases to the
getRegistryConfig function.
The authentication system properly handles the different token services
used by each registry:
- Docker Hub: auth.docker.io with service=registry.docker.io
- GHCR: ghcr.io/token with service=ghcr.io
Both registries now support the full OCI specification including
multi-arch images via OCI image indexes.
Fixes#96
## Motivation and Context
See #96
## How Has This Been Tested?
Has some unit and integration tests, still needs proper testing of the
different registry types
## Breaking Changes
Yes, new package uploads will need extra verification
## 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)
- [x] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
