## Summary
- Move package version 'remarks' to 'description' field in JSON schema
(remarks is not a standard JSON schema field)
- Confirmed non-semver version test coverage already exists
Addresses followup comments from #435.
Co-authored-by: claude[bot] <209825114+claude[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
Currently there are a couple shortcomings I found in the
server.schema.json:
- It uses `https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema` which is
unfortunately [not supported by VS
Code](https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/165219)
- The Package schema does not require properties that are required by
the service
This means that need to round trip with the publish endpoint (perhaps
spinning CI builds) to get the server.json right. It would be great if
we could shift left and get indications in VS Code easier.
I propose we downgrade the schema to
`http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#`. The only difference for us is
the name of `$def` pointers.
I looked that [SchemaStore](https://github.com/SchemaStore/schemastore)
and it looks like `draft-07` is by far the most popular. I believe the
concession of using an older schema is worth it to get VS Code editor
hints.
Schema version | Count in SchemaStore
-- | --
`http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#` | 292
`http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#` | 1972
`https://json-schema.org/draft/2019-09/schema` | 4
`https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema` | 4
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
## Open questions
- [ ] Should package `transport` actually be required? Or should `stdio`
be assumed?
- [ ] Should package `registry_base_url` be required? All of the
examples have it it's not required by the publish endpoint.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
I have tried the new schema inside VS Code and I get helpful warning.
For example, these are the warnings for the old schema.
<img width="1561" height="919" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/474170b8-acf8-4dca-a3d9-66c68c0d1902"
/>
I have run these:
`go run .\tools\validate-examples\main.go`
`go run .\tools\validate-schemas\main.go `
## Breaking Changes
I don't think these are breaking changes. I am expressing what the
publish endpoint enforces at runtime.
## 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
- [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 -->
Validates that server versions are not ranges.
**NB:** This also introduces `validateVersion` as a check on the
top-level `ValidateServerJSON`, as previously we were only checking
version ranges of packages via `validatePackageField` (i.e. `latest`
would have still been a valid top level server version), despite #413's
wording suggesting otherwise.
## Motivation and Context
Solves https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/415
## How Has This Been Tested?
Tests added in `internal/validators/validators_test.go`
`make check` is clean.
## Breaking Changes
As per @domdomegg's comment, we should
> check nobody has done this in the existing registry data (if they
have, we should explore and understand why people have done this / if
it's valid etc.).
## 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)
- [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
-->
Adds optional website_url field to the server.json schema allowing
publishers to provide a url to the server's homepage, documentation, or
project website. This provides a central link for users to learn more
about the server. Particularly useful when the server has custom
installation instructions or setup requirements.
Issue: #183
PR: #130
Discussion: #274
## Motivation and Context
This change addresses the need identified in #130, #183 and #274 for a
standardized way to direct users to an official landing page similar to
`homepage` used in NPM
([example](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@modelcontextprotocol/sdk)). It
is also serves as a viable option for MCP Servers that don't follow
typical package manager patterns (e.g., embedded in a Desktop app).
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Schema validation: All 13 example server.json files validate
successfully against the updated schema
- Go validator tests: Added additional test cases covering URL format
validation and namespace matching
- Run all checks: Updated example files to work with anonymous
publishing and verified `make check` passes
## Breaking Changes
None. The website_url field is optional and backward compatible with
existing server.json files.
## Types of changes
- [ ] 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
- [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
Security considerations:
- Website URL validation enforces that the domain matches the
publisher's reverse-DNS namespace
- HTTP/HTTPS protocols are required (no file:// or other schemes)
- Validation is consistent with existing remote URL validation patterns
## Summary
Simplified the schema structure by:
- Replacing `version_detail.version` with direct `version` field
- Removing unused `release_date` field from seed data
- Updating all API types, models, and tests to match new structure
- Maintaining backwards compatibility in API responses
This change makes the schema more intuitive and reduces nesting depth.
## Summary
- Add comprehensive security warnings to the `Argument` type in
server.schema.json
- Warn about command injection risks from user-provided input in
arguments
- Include concrete example of malicious payload (`;rm -rf
~/Development`)
- Recommend non-shell execution methods and user consent for safer
command execution
Fixes#41
## Summary
Updates the `_meta` field structure to be compliant with the MCP
specification by using proper `prefix/name` format for vendor
extensions.
### Changes
- **Registry metadata**: `io.modelcontextprotocol.registry` →
`io.modelcontextprotocol.registry/official`
- **Publisher metadata**: `publisher` →
`io.modelcontextprotocol.registry/publisher-provided`
- **Database migration**: Updates indexes to use new field paths
- **Updated all code**: Service layer, validators, tests, and seed data
### Format Before
```json
{
"_meta": {
"publisher": { "license": "MIT" },
"io.modelcontextprotocol.registry": { "id": "...", "is_latest": true }
}
}
```
### Format After
```json
{
"_meta": {
"io.modelcontextprotocol.registry/publisher-provided": { "license": "MIT" },
"io.modelcontextprotocol.registry/official": { "id": "...", "is_latest": true }
}
}
```
This resolves the naming collision with the planned top-level
`publisher` field and ensures compliance with MCP specification
requirements.
Fixes#356
## Summary
Implements mandatory file hash validation for MCPB (MCP Bundle) packages
to ensure file integrity and security.
## Changes
- **Validator enforcement**: MCPB packages now require `file_sha256`
field at publish time
- **Test coverage**: Updated all MCPB test cases to include valid
SHA-256 hashes
- **Documentation**: Updated publisher guide and schema to reflect hash
requirement
- **Error handling**: Clear error message when hash is missing
## Security Impact
This ensures the complete security workflow for MCPB packages:
1. Authors generate and provide SHA-256 hashes when publishing
2. Registry validates hash is present (but doesn't verify content)
3. MCP clients validate hash matches downloaded file before installation
Fixes#351
## Motivation and Context
Docs currently don't have very clear organisation, and don't explain
core flows.
This fixes#89 (although we still might want to push these to
`https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/`), based on the plan there.
One minor change from that plan is that I merged tutorials and guides,
because they ended up basically being duplicates which I thought would
be annoying for us to keep in sync. Additionally in the Diátaxis
framework, tutorials and guides are separated by whether they are
focused on acquisition of skills (e.g. in a learning environment) or
application of skills (e.g. in a work environment). I expect the
registry to be something that will be used occasionally in a work
environment, rather than a fundamental 'learnable' skill so I think it's
reasonable not to have tutorials and fold these into guides.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Read through all these updated docs
- Unit and integration tests (that previously used examples.md and use
the schema) working
- Ran `npx markdown-link-check .` to check all the links work
## Breaking Changes
Links to old docs will break, but I don't think there are any. All
internal links have been checked and updated.
## 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
