Replace the markdown `# Frequently Asked Questions` heading with proper
MDX frontmatter that includes both `title` and `sidebarTitle` fields.
This brings the FAQ page in line with MDX documentation conventions.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
Added a fully client-side browser for MCP registry APIs to the
`community-projects.md` documentation page:
https://vemonet.github.io/mcp-registry
I built it because I was missing a way to easily configure a server and
export the configuration (existing browsers I have found show the
available parameters, but you still need to manually build the JSON):
- It shows a user friendly form that enables to configure MCP servers
based on their registry entry, making it easier to understand and fill
the configuration required for deploying a server (instead of having to
read through JSON, and manually build another JSON). Then users can
either copy the generated config or install in client with custom URL
handler like VSCode/cursor in 1 click
- It is a thin client UI layer over the existing registry API, it does
not offer additional classification, complex filtering, or semantic
search (we don't use an additional server or database). So it is more of
a tool to make it user friendly to directly access a raw registry
content and inspects available servers, than an opinionated browser with
advanced search capabilities
## 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)
- [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
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] 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 adds a PUT method for updating a server version
(optional, not implemented by the registry but still provides the
ability for other registry implementations to standardise on it)
**Details:**
- Path: PUT /v0.1/servers/{serverName}/versions/{version}
- Purpose: Update a specific version of an MCP server in the registry
- Authentication: Uses bearer token authentication (registry-specific)
- Request Body: Accepts a ServerDetail schema
- Response: Returns a ServerResponse on success (200)
- Error Handling: Includes proper HTTP status codes:
- 401: Unauthorized
- 403: Forbidden - Insufficient permissions
- 404: Server or version not found
- 500: Internal server error
- 501: Not Implemented - Registry doesn't support updates
## 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>
Prepared by Claude Code, iterated and reviewed by me.
## Summary
This PR releases the server.json schema version `2025-12-11`,
incorporating URL template variables for remote servers from #570.
### What's New
- **URL Template Variables for Remote Servers** - Remote servers can now
define configurable variables in URLs using `{curly_braces}` notation,
enabling multi-tenant deployments.
### Schema Version
- `2025-10-17` → `2025-12-11`
## Release Sequence
1. ~~**First: Merge static repo PR** -
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/static/pull/11 (publishes schema
to versioned URL)~~
2. **Then: Merge this PR** - Updates registry code to reference the new
schema version
## Changes in This PR
- [x] Update CHANGELOG.md with release notes
- [x] Update `CurrentSchemaVersion` in `pkg/model/constants.go`
- [x] Update schema example URL in `docs/reference/api/openapi.yaml`
- [x] Update schema URL in `pkg/api/v0/types.go`
- [x] Update all documentation examples to use new schema version
- [x] Regenerate `server.schema.json`
## Test Plan
- [x] `make check` passes (lint, schema validation, example validation)
- [x] Unit tests pass for validators and publisher commands
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored with Claude Code, but I've closely reviewed/modified/vetted
all changes; ready for final review.
## Summary
This PR adds LocalTransport and RemoteTransport separation with URL
template variable support for remote servers, enabling e.g. multi-tenant
deployments with configurable endpoints.
**Key additions:**
- LocalTransport (for Packages) and RemoteTransport (for Remotes)
- URL template variables for remote transports (e.g., `{tenant_id}` in
URLs)
- Pattern validation ensuring URLs are URL-like while allowing templates
- Full test coverage via Go validator tests and documentation examples
## ⚠️ server.json Update
This PR updates the `server.json` schema. A new schema version will be
cut after this lands.
## Problem
The current schema describes URL templating with `{curly_braces}` for
transports but provides no mechanism for Remote contexts to define what
those variables should resolve to, making the feature unusable for
remote servers.
Referenced issue: #394
- Users need multi-tenant remote servers with different endpoints per
deployment
- Each tenant/region has its own URL (e.g., `us-cell1.example.com`,
`emea-cell1.example.com`)
- Current schema doesn't support parameterized remote URLs
## Solution
### Schema Architecture
**LocalTransport** (for Package context):
```typescript
LocalTransport = StdioTransport | StreamableHttpTransport | SseTransport
```
- Used in Package context (non-breaking rename of existing behavior)
- Variables in `{curly_braces}` reference parent Package
arguments/environment variables
- Supports all three transport types including stdio
**RemoteTransport** (for Remote context):
```typescript
RemoteTransport = (StreamableHttpTransport | SseTransport) + { variables: object }
```
- Extends StreamableHttp/Sse via `allOf` composition - no duplication!
- Adds `variables` object for URL templating
- Only supports streamable-http and sse (stdio not valid for remotes)
### Key Changes
**1. Schema Updates** (`openapi.yaml`, `server.schema.json`):
- Added `LocalTransport` union type for Package context
- Added `RemoteTransport` with `allOf` composition extending base
transports
- Updated Package to reference `LocalTransport`
- Updated remotes to reference `RemoteTransport`
- Added URL pattern validation: `^https?://[^\\s]+$` to both
StreamableHttp and SSE
- Removed `format: uri` from SSE (was blocking template variables)
**2. Go Types** (`pkg/model/types.go`):
- Base `Transport` struct unchanged for Package context
- `RemoteTransport` struct for remotes with `Variables` field
- Both work with existing validation infrastructure
**3. Validators** (`internal/validators/`):
- `validateRemoteTransport()` validates Remote-specific constraints
- `collectRemoteTransportVariables()` extracts available variables
- `IsValidTemplatedURL()` validates template variables reference defined
variables
- `IsValidRemoteURL()` handles template variable substitution before
localhost check
- 6 new test cases for remote transport variable validation
**4. Documentation Examples** (`generic-server-json.md`):
- Remote Server with URL Templating (StreamableHttp with `{tenant_id}`)
- SSE Remote with URL Templating (SSE with `{tenant_id}`)
- Local Server with URL Templating (Package with `{port}`)
- All examples validate via existing `validate-examples` tool
## Example: Remote Transport with Variables
```json
{
"remotes": [
{
"type": "streamable-http",
"url": "https://api.example.com/mcp/{tenant_id}/{region}",
"variables": {
"tenant_id": {
"description": "Tenant identifier",
"isRequired": true,
"choices": ["us-cell1", "emea-cell1", "apac-cell1"]
},
"region": {
"description": "Deployment region",
"isRequired": true
}
}
}
]
}
```
Clients configure the variables, and `{tenant_id}` and `{region}` get
replaced to connect to tenant-specific endpoints like
`https://api.example.com/mcp/us-cell1/east`.
## Architecture Details
**Context-based variable resolution:**
- **Package + LocalTransport**: `{port}` references `--port` argument or
`PORT` env var from parent Package
- **Remote + RemoteTransport**: `{tenant_id}` references
`variables.tenant_id` defined in the transport itself
- **Code reuse**: StreamableHttp/Sse definitions shared via `allOf`, not
duplicated
- **Validation**: Template variables validated against available
variables for each context
---
## Follow-on Work
Follow-on work will be done to adopt the feedback in
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/570#issuecomment-3367417636
regarding variable naming/prioritzation/scoping conventions, but should
not have any impact on the shape being introduced here (just
validations).
---------
Co-authored-by: yuna0x0 <yuna@yuna0x0.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Connor Peet <connor@peet.io>
Prepared by Claude Code, reviewed by me.
## Summary
- Update all API endpoint paths from `/v0/` to `/v0.1/` in the OpenAPI
spec
- Bump OpenAPI spec version from `2025-10-17` to `2025-12-01` (in `$id`
and `info.version`)
## Rationale
This ensures sub-registries implementing the spec are adhering to the
stable v0.1 version rather than the unstable v0. The API freeze (v0.1)
provides stability guarantees that sub-registries need.
## Additional cleanup
### Make `_meta` optional in `ServerResponse`
The `_meta` field (and its `io.modelcontextprotocol.registry/official`
extension) were never intended to be required parts of the spec.
Sub-registries may not use these registry-specific metadata fields, so
they should be optional.
### Move extensions docs to use /v0.1/ instead of /v0/
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
This resolves
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/738. There are
two issues with the NuGet.org integration today:
1. Change the `registryBaseUrl` for NuGet to
`https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json`. `https://api.nuget.org` is not
the entry point for our service and is not specific enough.
`https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json` is the value that users put into
their tooling to connect to our public registry (it is installed by
default in .NET client tooling).
2. Use the service index API to get the URL pattern for package READMEs.
- This URL is not guaranteed to be stable. The service index URL
(`registryBaseUrl`) is, however.
Additionally, I polished up the error messages so various error modes
are clearer. When packages are published to NuGet.org, they take 2-5
minutes to become available due to validations we run.
Some possible states that are now handled and described more helpfully
are:
- Version exists, but the package has no README
- The ID exists, but the version does not
- The ID does not exist at all
There are only 3 authors (me, another MSFT person, and a community
member) explicitly setting the old value. The DB migration will fix the
issue. A future publish will fail with the validation error but the
error message is clear.
`registry type and base URL do not match: 'https://api.nuget.org' is not
valid for registry type 'nuget'. Expected:
https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json`
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
- Unit tests, new and existing
- Manual test locally
- Set old data in the DB, `docker compose up`, confirm the migration
updates the specific package
## Breaking Changes
Yes, but minimal impact expected, unless there is a dependency on the
specific `https://api.nuget.org` value downstream. I am not aware of any
such dependency, and the new value is more proper and specific.
## 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)
- [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
-->
For more information about the NuGet API see:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/api/overview#service-index (I
wrote most of the docs).
Update Documentation Index section to reflect the current directory
structure after the docs reorganization in #728. The old links to
./guides/ and ./explanations/ no longer exist.
Fixes#821🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Drafted by Claude Code, reviewed and tested by me.
Add instructions for maintainers to connect to the production PostgreSQL
database, including Cloud Shell (recommended) and local machine methods,
plus read-only session configuration for safety.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Introduces a standardized way for registries to provide experimental or
community-driven features without committing them to the core API
specification.
## Summary
- Extensions live under `/v0/x/<namespace>/<extension>` URL structure
- Simple conventions: REST, JSON responses, cursor pagination, optional
auth
- Composable design building on core APIs where possible
This enables experimentation with features like search (#389) and MCP
server integration (#24) while keeping the core API minimal and stable.
Fixes#776
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The `--file=PATH` pattern does not work. The path is an optional,
positional argument not a named option.
The `--dry-run` option is not supported.
Look at the implementation:
d092dd6390/cmd/publisher/commands/publish.go (L19)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Try these options yourself, they are ignored.
## 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)
- [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
-->
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>
The schema in this repo may contain unreleased changes, so labeling it
with a dated version URL is misleading. Change to use a `draft` URL
instead, and add documentation for the schema contribution process.
- Update $id in server.schema.json to use draft URL
- Update example $schema URL in openapi.yaml
- Add Draft (Unreleased) section to CHANGELOG.md
- Add CONTRIBUTING.md with process for making/releasing schema changes
Written by Claude Code, reviewed and tweaked by me.
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
## What this fixes
The API changelog had a section header dated `2025-11-17`, but the
openapi.yaml version is `2025-10-17`. This was confusing because they
appeared to be tracking the same thing but didn't match.
## What happened
1. Various API changes (v0.1 introduction, endpoint removal) were made
in early-to-mid October
2. On **Oct 17**, commit 0828bc4 bumped the openapi.yaml version to
`2025-10-17`
3. These changes sat under an "Unreleased" section in the changelog
4. On **Nov 17**, commit 7b3f01a converted "Unreleased" → `2025-11-17`
as part of the v1.3.9 release process
The problem: `2025-11-17` was the date the release was cut, not the API
version. Since there were no openapi.yaml changes between Oct 17 and Nov
17, the changelog section should match the API version (`2025-10-17`),
not the internal release date.
## The fix
Change the changelog header from `## 2025-11-17` to `## 2025-10-17` to
align with the openapi.yaml version that consumers actually use.
@domdomegg am I correct in thinking this was just a typo? Or was the
distinction intentional?
Authored by Claude Code, reviewed by me.
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Follow-up to #728.
This fixes broken links due to file renames.
Fixes#788.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following adds a DELETE method to the reference API specification of
the registry.
The endpoint is consistent with the rest of the spec and provides a
standardised way for registry implementations to support deletion if
they choose to.
**Details:**
* Endpoint: DELETE /v0/servers/{serverName}/versions/{version}
* Uses tags: [publish] (same as POST /v0/publish for write operations)
* Requires security: bearerAuth authentication
* Returns ServerResponse on success (200) - matching POST pattern
* Same error responses: 401 (Unauthorized), 403 (Forbidden), 500
(Internal error)
* Added 404 (Not Found) for when server/version doesn't exist
* Parameters match the GET endpoint format with URL-encoding examples
* Marked as "(Optional)" in summary
* Explicit note that it's not implemented by the official registry
* States it's included for standardization purposes
## 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>
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>
<!-- 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
-->
Add a standardized OAuth 2.1-based authentication specification for MCP
sub-registries, aligned with the MCP Authorization Specification.
This enables:
- Private registry entries with access control
- Permission-based server visibility
- Client code reuse (clients can use their existing MCP auth
implementation)
The spec is intended for downstream sub-registries. The official
registry remains public for reading.
Fixes#751
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Updates the API changelog to reflect the v1.3.9 release date
(2025-11-17).
This moves the 'Unreleased' section to a dated section as part of the
v1.3.9 release process.
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Resolve https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/768 and
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/494.
Require HTTPS for remote URLs. Currently all remote URLs on the MCP
Registry are HTTPS.
Also fix a test bug when running on Windows (bad temp path).
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Unit tests.
Published a server.json locally with a website URL not matching the
server name.
## 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. -->
- [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
- [ ] ~I have added or updated documentation as needed~ N/A
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
## Motivation and Context
I found the current raw assorted list of community project a bit
overwhelming and confusing at first.
So I gave some thought to it, and realized that at first I primarily
wanted to see what there is to browse the registry - so that should
probably go first? (The current magnifying glass icon, which was even
missing on one of the links, wasn't obvious enough, for me.)
Also I was looking for a Java client, and realized there already Go and
TS clients in this list - let's group those.
The Other section in the middle is for everything else (for now, it can
always further evolve, later).
## How Has This Been Tested?
N/A, as documentation only.
## Breaking Changes
Nope, it's documentation only.
## Types of changes
- [ ] 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)
- [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
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
Updated the project entry from **Awesome MCP Registry** to **ToolSDK MCP
Registry**, reflecting the new GitHub repository name and official
project name.
> We’re honored that our Sub Registry project has been included in the
official MCP Registry. To better reflect its purpose and maintain a more
professional naming convention, we’re updating the entry name from
**Awesome MCP Registry** to **ToolSDK MCP Registry**. This change
replaces the earlier, more generic name “Awesome” with a clearer and
more representative title for the project.
>
> *Based on GitHub’s renaming mechanism, the old link remains valid and
will automatically redirect to the new repository.*
## Motivation and Context
The project repository has been renamed and migrated from
[`toolsdk-ai/awesome-mcp-registry`](https://github.com/toolsdk-ai/awesome-mcp-registry)
→
[`toolsdk-ai/toolsdk-mcp-registry`](https://github.com/toolsdk-ai/toolsdk-mcp-registry).
This update ensures that the community registry points to the **correct
and active repository**, while maintaining the same project description
and context. The **ToolSDK MCP Registry** continues to extend the MCP
Registry with **API-based MCP execution**, **private deployment**, and
**secure sandbox isolation**.
---
## How Has This Been Tested?
Verified that the new link is accessible and points to the correct
repository. All descriptions and formatting remain consistent with other
community entries.
---
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes — documentation update only.
---
## Types of changes
* [x] Documentation update
---
## Checklist
* [x] I have verified the new link and repository name
* [x] I have followed the repository’s documentation style
* [x] The update aligns with MCP community contribution guidelines
---
## Additional context
This change reflects a **repository rename** for clarity and branding
consistency. The project functionality and scope remain the same.
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
Added **Awesome MCP Registry** to the Featured Projects list — a
community project that extends the MCP Registry with **API-based MCP
execution**, **private deployment**, and **secure sandbox isolation**.
---
## Motivation and Context
Most existing MCP Registry projects primarily serve as directories —
they list available MCP servers but do not support actual invocation or
interaction.
**Awesome MCP Registry** bridges this gap by enabling **direct API
execution of MCPs** within a **sandboxed** and **self-hostable**
environment.
This allows developers and enterprises to safely run, test, and
integrate MCP servers in **private infrastructure** while maintaining
full control over data and execution.
---
## How Has This Been Tested?
The project has been validated in private and local deployments using
various MCP servers.
API execution, sandbox isolation, and registry synchronization have been
tested successfully in both development and production-like
environments.
---
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes — documentation update only.
---
## Types of changes
* [x] Documentation update
---
## Checklist
* [x] I have read the [[MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
* [x] The project description follows the repository’s style guidelines
* [x] The project link and summary are verified and accurate
* [x] The addition aligns with the MCP community contribution standards
---
## Additional context
This addition highlights a project that **extends the traditional MCP
Registry model** by introducing **execution capabilities**, making it a
practical foundation for **secure, private, and automated MCP
workflows**.
---------
Co-authored-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 implements the missing support for logging in via
`--token` or `MCP_GITHUB_TOKEN`
## 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
-->
Fixes: #698
---------
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
This allows the private key used for DNS or HTTP based authentication to
be stored securely in a cloud key management system. These services
often provide HSM storage which makes it very hard to leak the private
key.
The full context is described in my design document here:
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/482#issuecomment-3437117171
## How Has This Been Tested?
I have tested it against PROD using an Ed25519 key stored in Google KMS.
I have added unit tests. I have tested both ECDSA P-384 and Ed25519 with
Az KV and Google KMS against a locally running server.
## Breaking Changes
None intended.
## 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
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg+git@gmail.com>
Adds [go-mcp-registry](https://github.com/leefowlercu/go-mcp-registry)
to the Community Projects documentation
## Motivation and Context
Wanted to add my project to your community projects documentation
## How Has This Been Tested?
No testing necessary
## Breaking Changes
None
## Types of changes
- [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
<!-- 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? -->
## 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)
- [x] 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
-->
Adds a link to a new community project
## Motivation and Context
This addresses the need to have a web browsable, live page of the MCP
server registry.
## Types of changes
- [ ] 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)
- [x] Documentation update
## Additional context
Provides both a web browsable link and a SQLite database. Database can
be connected to or downloaded.
## Motivation and Context
See
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/482#issuecomment-3436993157
for full details.
This adds ECDSA P-384 (a popular NIST approved curve) in addition to
Ed25519.
## How Has This Been Tested?
I have tested with a local deployment against `mcp.joelverhagen.com`.
Also, I have added significant tests.
## Breaking Changes
None. (hopefully)
## 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
-->
@domdomegg and I spoke a bit about this on Discord:
https://discord.com/channels/1358869848138059966/1369487942862504016/1423710918180606052
---------
Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg+git@gmail.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR:
* Makes mcpb package version property optional
* Bumps the schema and reflects that in the code
* Makes sure the publisher tests are being covered by doing `make check`
## 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 -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Addressing
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/634#issuecomment-3410615843
## 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>
This PR contains a few commits, but the punchline is that we add a "🔎"
icon next to community projects that provide an in-browser UI for the
registry. The intention is that these projects can serve as a stopgap or
substitute for
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/99.
This is just a first take. Very open to feedback!
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR fixes the docs and the image reference for prod since
they don't expect to have the v prefix there.
## 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 -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR splits the workflows for deploying to prod and staging
easing the use of gitops flows for promotions.
## 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 -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Follow up from #658 addressing the feedback from @tadasant
## 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>
Updating openapi.yaml to be in sync with latest changes. Funcitonality
for search param introduced back in
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/374
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
## How Has This Been Tested?
N/A
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## 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)
- [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
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [x] I have added or updated documentation as needed
---------
Co-authored-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 adds a new v0.1 API version.
The goal is to mark v0.1 as a "freeze" point while keeping v0 as the
moving target for new features so integrators can start building on top
of something stable(r).
Details:
* This change is quite simple - we re-register the same handlers twice,
once as `v0` and once as `v0.1`
* Going forward, we'll keep v0.1 frozen while we add changes either on
top of both (non-breaking) or we'll have to branch if breaking changes
are necessary
* We all acknowledge this is not exactly best-practice, but it gives us
a way to gather feedback and allow clients to start integrating with the
API without breaking them (**note** this implies a follow up PR that
would branch the handlers used in v0.1).
* For integrators/clients: please provide your feedback - what works
well, what doesn't so we can take this into account going towards GA.
## 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? -->
No, this just adds a new API version alongside the existing one.
## 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
-->
Fixes: #649
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
Adds a remote mcp server so that you can browse the mcp registry using
MCP - all remote, so you only need a URL
`https://registry-mcp.remote-mcp.com/`
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
## 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
-->
Updated the link to MCP server architecture documentation.
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Fixes#638
## 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
-->
This PR adds a Go tool that extracts the ServerDetail schema from
openapi.yaml and generates server.schema.json, ensuring the two specs
stay in sync.
## Key Changes
### New Tooling
- **Go tool** at `tools/extract-server-schema/` that auto-discovers all
schemas referenced by ServerDetail and extracts them from OpenAPI
- **make targets**: `generate-schema` (generates schema) and
`check-schema` (verifies sync)
- `check-schema` is now included in `make validate` and `make check`
### Preserved Validation Constraints
The initial auto-generated schema lost many important validation rules
and descriptive guidance from the hand-crafted version. The OpenAPI spec
has been updated to preserve:
**Security & Descriptions:**
- Command injection security warning on Arguments
- Detailed field descriptions with usage guidance
- `placeholder` field for Input schema
**Validation Constraints:**
- `fileSha256` pattern validation (`^[a-f0-9]{64}$`)
- Package version restrictions (minLength: 1, no "latest")
- `transport` as required field in Package
- ServerDetail `name` pattern and length constraints (3-200 chars)
- Description, title, and version length limits
**Documentation:**
- Repository field descriptions (url, source, id, subfolder)
- PositionalArgument `valueHint` explains transport URL substitution
- Updated examples to match hand-crafted version (Weather API theme)
**Intentional Changes:**
- Removed `additionalProperties` constraints for flexibility
- Updated schema title to be more descriptive
- Added `$comment` noting auto-generation
See the commit "Preserve validation constraints in auto-generated
server.schema.json" for details.
### Fixed Missing Package.transport
- Added `transport` field to OpenAPI Package schema (was in Go model at
`pkg/model/types.go:30` but missing from OpenAPI)
- Split transport types into three separate schemas with proper
discriminated unions:
- `StdioTransport` - Only requires `type: stdio`
- `StreamableHttpTransport` - Requires `type` and `url`, supports
`headers`
- `SseTransport` - Requires `type` and `url`, supports `headers`
- `Package.transport` uses `anyOf` with all three types
- `ServerDetail.remotes` uses `anyOf` with only remote types (no stdio)
### Other Improvements
- Added `GOTOOLCHAIN=auto` to Makefile for Go 1.25 compatibility
- Added `DRIFT_ANALYSIS.md` documenting all schema drift issues found
between specs
## Benefits
**Single Source of Truth**: The OpenAPI spec now serves as the
authoritative schema definition, with server.schema.json automatically
derived from it.
**Better Validation**: All critical validation rules (patterns, length
constraints, required fields) and security warnings are preserved in the
generated schema.
**Improved Developer Experience**:
- Schema changes only need to be made in one place (openapi.yaml)
- CI validation ensures specs never drift apart
- Clear auto-generation comment prevents manual edits
## Validation
✅ All 20 examples validate correctly
✅ Lint passes with 0 issues
✅ Schema is in sync with OpenAPI
✅ All validation constraints from hand-crafted schema preserved
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Implements icon support based on the Model Context Protocol
specification, allowing servers to specify display icons with optional
size, MIME type, and theme variants.
## Changes
- Add `Icon` type to `pkg/model/types.go` with struct tags for automatic
API validation
- Add `icons` field to `ServerJSON` in `pkg/api/v0/types.go`
- Add icon validation in `internal/validators/validators.go`:
- Only HTTPS URLs allowed (no HTTP or data URIs)
- Maximum URL length of 255 characters
- Validates absolute URLs with proper scheme
- Update JSON schema and OpenAPI documentation with Icon definitions
- Add comprehensive test cases for icon validation
- Add example icon to seed.json (Airtable server)
- Change `websiteUrl` validation to HTTPS-only for consistency
## Implementation Details
The implementation uses a two-layer validation architecture:
1. **Huma framework** validates struct tags (`required`, `maxLength`,
`enum`, `pattern`) and returns 422 for violations
2. **Custom validators** handle business logic (HTTPS scheme
requirement, absolute URL requirement) and return 400 for violations
This approach leverages Huma's automatic validation while keeping
business-specific rules in the validator layer.
## Icon Field Specification
- `src` (required): HTTPS URL to icon resource, max 255 characters
- `mimeType` (optional): One of `image/png`, `image/jpeg`, `image/jpg`,
`image/svg+xml`, `image/webp`
- `sizes` (optional): Array of size strings in "WxH" format or "any" for
scalable formats
- `theme` (optional): Either "light" or "dark" to indicate intended
background
Multiple icons can be provided (e.g., for different themes or sizes).
