Updates the registry type for all Docker Hub packages in the seed data
from `docker-hub` to `oci` to align with the standardized OCI registry
format. This change affects the `registry_type` field and simplifies the
`identifier` field by removing the full Docker Hub URL prefix.
Changes:
- Updated `registry_type` from `docker-hub` to `oci` for all Docker
packages
- Simplified `identifier` field to use just the repository name/path
instead of full URLs
- Maintained `registry_base_url` as `https://docker.io` for all entries
This refactoring improves consistency and aligns with OCI standards
while maintaining backward compatibility through the registry base URL.
## Description
This PR addresses #300 by adding explicit versioning to the MCP Registry
API OpenAPI specification.
## Changes
- Added `version: "2025-07-09"` field to the `info` section of the
OpenAPI specification
- Maintains consistency with existing date-based versioning used across
all schema files
## Rationale
As outlined in #300, the OpenAPI spec was missing an explicit version
field, which could lead to:
- Compatibility issues as the API evolves
- Lack of clarity for API consumers
- Missing functionality in OpenAPI tooling that expects a version field
This follows the MCP specification's date-based versioning approach.
Closes#300
## Motivation and Context
- Add MCPB as a new registry_name option
- Add file_hashes field to package model for integrity verification
- Implement URL validation restricting MCPB packages to GitHub/GitLab
hosts
- Require SHA-256 hash for all MCPB packages
- Add example MCPB package in documentation
- Update schemas and OpenAPI specification
See issue #260
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
## Breaking Changes
N/A, registry has not yet been launched
## 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)
- [ ] 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: Adam Jones <adamj+git@anthropic.com>
## Summary
- Add optional `$schema` property to ServerDetail specification
- Update JSON Schema, OpenAPI spec, Go models, examples, and publisher
template
- Enable schema versioning and IDE validation support
## Changes
- Added `$schema` as optional string property with URI format in specs
- Updated Go ServerDetail struct with new Schema field
- Added `$schema` to examples and publisher template
- Copy schema file to ../static for GitHub Pages hosting
Fixes#139
This PR adds a new example to the OpenAPI specification that
demonstrates the publisher extensions feature recently added in #298.
## Changes
- Added \`example_org_server\` example to the OpenAPI spec
- Demonstrates \`x-publisher\` fields for contact email and build
metadata
- Shows organization-specific extensions (\`x-com.example\`) including:
- Marketplace icon URL
- Category classification
- Documentation URL
- Verified publisher status
This example helps developers understand how to use the new vendor
extensions functionality when publishing servers to the registry.
Co-authored-by: adam jones <adamj+git@anthropic.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
This PR serves as a placeholder and brings together all of the changes
related to supporting vendor extensions passed through the API. The idea
is to have a single place to track and review the work as it comes
together (even if it’s still a bit of a work in progress).
**The changes in this PR cover:**
* Updates on the data model
* Updates on both databases (in-memory and postgresql), added a new
table to PSQL for tracking the extensions leaving the server table only
for the clean server.json properties
* Updates the seed.json file (thus the big line change)
* Adds a seed-migrate tool to help migrating an existing seed file to
the new format
* Updates the seed import mechanism to support this
* Updates the existing tests - unit, integration and validation tests
* Adds the publish handler to the OpenAPI spec (it was missing)
* Fixes linting errors
* Updates on the API side on (publish, list, get) to support the new
format of `ServerResponse` -
```
{
"server": {},
"x-io.modelcontextprotocol.registry": {}, /*not available for publish since this gets populated by the registry*/
"x-publisher": {}
}
```
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Motivated by the discussions in:
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/discussions/284
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Locally and by running all of the tests
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
Yes, it changes both the API and the format of the seed file
## 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)
- [x] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
---
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg+git@gmail.com>
## Motivation and Context
Currently there's a lot of unsafe manual JSON unmarshalling/marshalling,
and we have to manually keep the openapi schema in sync.
This PR migrates the API to
[Huma](https://github.com/danielgtaylor/huma), which appears like a
popular, well-maintained way to build APIs in Golang. I'm not a Golang
expert, but seemed highly recommended by Reddit + Claude and has a
decent star count. It provides automatic openapi spec generation and
docs hosting, JSON parsing, as well as the ability to add auth
middlewares etc.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running locally, and poking at the endpoints
## Breaking Changes
Docs are served at `/docs` rather than `/v0/swagger/index.html` now
## 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
-->
The following PR adds a new server `status` field to support the status
of servers, like deprecated or active
Details:
* Add status field to server.json schema with 'active' and 'deprecated'
values
* Update OpenAPI spec to include status field in Server responses
* Add ServerStatus enum and field to Go model structs
* Update examples to demonstrate status field usage (`active` and
`deprecated`)
Since this is my first PR there's a good chance I might have missed
something so I'll appreciate any feedback to make this and any PRs in
the future easier for you to review 😃Fixes: #181
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The main goal is to have a way for server authors to notify registry
consumers that a server may no longer be maintained and shouldn't be
considered for using.
## 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. -->
- [x] 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>
Co-authored-by: Tadas Antanavicius <tadas@tadasant.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
This is one attempt to resolve
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/169.
Instead of adding a new "constant" argument type, I expanded the
existing positional one and just dropped the `value_hint` requirement. I
am not sure if this has VS Code impact @sandy081, @connor4312.
Also, removed unneeded release_date values from the samples.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
I tested the current server.json samples in the repo against the new
(less strict) schema. Of course they passed (aside from an unrelated bug
in my previous NuGet sample 🤦).
## 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
-->
Closes#149
As noted in the FAQ update here, this is a helpful starting point in
thinking about this:
```
### What is the difference between "Official MCP Registry", "MCP Registry", "MCP registry", "MCP Registry API", etc?
There are four underlying concepts:
- "MCP Server Registry API" (or "MCP Registry API"): The OpenAPI specification defined in [openapi.yaml](./server-registry-api/openapi.yaml). This is a reusable API specification that anyone building any sort of "MCP server registry" should consider adopting / aligning with.
- "Official MCP Registry" (or "MCP Registry"): The application that lives at `https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io`. This registry currently only catalogs MCP servers, but may be extended in the future to also catalog MCP client/host apps and frameworks.
- "Official MCP Registry API": The REST API that lives at `https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io/api`, with an OpenAPI specification defined at [official-registry-openapi.yaml](./server-registry-api/official-registry-openapi.yaml)
- "MCP server registry" (or "MCP registry"): A third party, likely commercial, implementation of the MCP Server Registry API or derivative specification.
```
Prior to this PR, we were just treating "MCP Server Registry API" and
"Official MCP Registry API" to be the same thing. They are not the same:
the latter is inherently a more constrained version of the former. A
private deployment of a similar registry need not have constraints like
"the only valid source code repositories are `github` and `gitlab`".
This PR separates out the definitions to match that path forward.
## Notable Changes
### Base OpenAPI spec (`openapi.yaml`)
- Removed official-registry-specific constraints:
- No maximum limit on `/servers` endpoint
- No enum constraint on `Repository.source`
- No enum constraint on `Package.registry_name`
- Removed `/v0` prefix from paths (it's now just baked into the
`official` one's URL prefix)
- Added `$id` for proper schema identification
### Official Registry OpenAPI spec (`official-registry-openapi.yaml`)
- Created as a derivative of the base spec using `$ref`
- Re-adds official-registry-specific constraints:
- `Repository.source` enum: `[github]`
- `Package.registry_name` enum: `[npm, docker, pypi, nuget]`
### Documentation updates
- Added `server-registry-api/README.md` explaining the relationship
between specs
- Updated FAQ to clarify terminology
- Reorganized docs structure
