## 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
