## Summary
Implements `PUT /v0/servers/{id}` admin edit endpoint to address part of
issue #182, providing an API-based solution for server moderation
without requiring direct database access.
- **New endpoint**: `PUT /v0/servers/{id}` for editing existing servers
- **Security**: Uses existing JWT auth with `PermissionActionEdit`
permissions
- **Anti-undelete protection**: Added `ServerStatusDeleted` status that
cannot be reverted
- **Full implementation**: Database, service, API, and comprehensive
test coverage
## Key Use Cases
- Mark malicious servers as `deleted` for takedown
- Update server metadata for moderation actions
Related to: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/182
(but that is not _done_ yet because we need admins to be able to login
(probably with #283), and need to add docs on how to do the takedown,
and probably guidelines on what we will/won't takedown)
## 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>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
The changes are intended to create validators for all the free-form
fields. Please find the details of the validation of different field
below.
- Repository.Source: only github and gitlab is accepted.
- Repository.Url - It should be a valid github or gitlab URL. Created
regex for both.
- Server.Name - Max 200 char can be there. Reverse domain name
verification is part of another PR (not owned by me).
- Package.Name - Max 200 char and no spaces.
- Server.Description - Max 100 char.
- Remote.Url - It should be valid URL.
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The motivation was to make the code clean and add base code for more
validator for different objects like Repository etc.
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/97
## How Has This Been Tested?
It's tested via UTs. Added UT's for all the validations.
## Breaking Changes
Yes
## 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
## 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
- [x] New and existing tests pass locally
- [x] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
Co-authored-by: Avish Porwal <avishporwal@microsoft.com>
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
## Summary
- Add reverse-DNS namespace format validation for server names
(namespace/name)
- Validate remote URLs match the DNS namespace derived from hostname
- Prevent duplicate remote URLs across different servers
- Support localhost/development URLs without namespace restrictions
- Add comprehensive test coverage for validation logic
- Update database layer to support remote_url filtering
Fixes#180 by ensuring proper namespace governance and preventing URL
conflicts.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Summary
- Updates server names in documentation examples from arbitrary strings
to reverse DNS format (com.github.owner/repo)
- Standardizes package names and URLs for consistency across all
examples
- Improves naming convention to follow established patterns
This change makes the examples more consistent and follows common
reverse DNS naming conventions used in software development.
This implements the versioning approach agreed upon in issue #158:
## Key Changes
### Documentation
- Added comprehensive versioning guide (docs/versioning.md)
- Updated FAQ with versioning guidance and best practices
- Enhanced schema description with SHOULD recommendations
### Schema Updates
- Added 255-character limit for version strings in schema.json
- Enhanced version field description with semantic versioning guidance
### Implementation
- New isSemanticVersion() function for proper semver detection
- Enhanced compareSemanticVersions() with prerelease support
- Implemented compareVersions() strategy:
* Both semver: use semantic comparison
* Neither semver: use timestamp comparison
* Mixed: semver versions always take precedence
- Updated publish logic to determine "latest" using new strategy
- Added version length validation (255 char max)
### Versioning Strategy
1. Version MUST be string up to 255 characters
2. SHOULD use semantic versioning for predictable ordering
3. SHOULD align with package versions to reduce confusion
4. MAY use prerelease labels for registry-specific versions
5. Registry attempts semver parsing, falls back to timestamp ordering
6. Clients SHOULD follow same comparison logic
Resolves#158
---------
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 -->
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>
Make repository.id optional by:
- Removing 'id' from required fields in JSON schema
- Adding omitempty tags to Go model structs
- Updating examples to show simpler format without id
This fixes publishing failures where the publisher tool doesn't
generate repository.id but the schema requires it.
Fixes#179🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
Co-authored-by: claude[bot] <209825114+claude[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg@users.noreply.github.com>
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>
This is a first PR for #159 - adding some validation scripts. I want to
get to a place where we are confident that making schema changes is in
sync with the rest of our code. Step one is making sure the schemas are
in sync with our examples. Step two will be making sure the schemas are
in sync with our actual Registry implementation code.
This is just for the JSON right now; if we're feeling good about this
approach I'll do an analogous change for the OpenAPI schemas as well.
I'll also follow with adding usage of these scripts to our CI pipeline
so we have automated checks on them with every change.
## Summary
- Added CLI validation tools for JSON schemas and examples in
`docs/server-json/`
- Fixed some minor validation errors found in `examples.md`
- Ensures schema consistency and example validity in CI/CD pipelines
## Changes
### New Validation Tools
1. **`tools/validate-schemas`** - Validates that `schema.json` and
`registry-schema.json` are valid JSON Schema documents
2. **`tools/validate-examples`** - Validates all JSON examples in
`examples.md` against both schemas
### Key Features
- ✅ Validates JSON schema syntax and structure
- ✅ Validates all examples against both base and registry schemas
- ✅ Tracks validation counts to prevent silent failures
- ✅ Proper exit codes for CI integration
- ✅ Clear error messages for debugging
### Fixes to examples.md
- Added missing `repository.id` field in NuGet example
- Changed `repository.source` from "gitlab" to "github" in Docker
example
### Usage
```bash
# From repository root
./tools/validate-schemas.sh
./tools/validate-examples.sh
```
## Testing
I ran these scripts locally with minor (breaking) changes, which they
each correctly reported. As submitted, they are both passing.
🤖 Co-authored with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Charles Lowell <10964656+chlowell@users.noreply.github.com>
<!-- 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/173
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Copilot fixed my spelling mistakes.
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
None.
## 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
-->
Ideally the `id` would be populated by the publisher CLI tool "on the
way out" and MCP Registry would validate the `id`, perhaps using the
token used for auth in the case of private repositories.
<!-- 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#155
The "generalized" `server.json` is the one that can be used in a variety
of situations:
- Discoverability on a centralized registry (i.e. our official Registry
work)
- Discoverability on a decentralized .well-known endpoint
- As a response to an initialization call, so the client knows
information about the MCP server to which it is connecting
- As an input into crafting a [DXT
file](https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/desktop-extensions)
- Packaged in with the source code of an MCP server, so as to have a
structured way context
Of these, the official Registry is but one use case. The Registry has a
unique set of concerns for which we are optimizing, like whitelisting of
specific registries we trust to host MCP server source code for the
public community (`npm`, `pypi`, etc). It is not necessary to have such
a constraint for the generalized server.json, which may be used in, for
example, an internal context where such a validation doesn't make sense.
So I've done the following at a high level:
- Renamed the prior `schema.json` to be `registry-schema.json`
- Introduced a more generic `schema.json` to serve as the schema for the
generalized `server.json`
- Refactored `registry-schema.json` to be simply a constraint on the
base `schema.json`
I made a few small changes in this transition:
- Removed `gitlab` as an option in `repository.source` for
`registry-schema.json`. I'm fine going live with just GitHub support;
would be happy to take a contribution from e.g. Gitlab employees or a
motivated Gitlab customer to expand anytime.
- Removed `homebrew` as an option in `packages.registry_name`; never
really made sense, not a place where folks are publishing MCP servers
- Added `docker` to `packages.runtime_hint`; was just a missing
oversight
- Gave both schemas a global `$id`
~- Removed `release_date` from both schemas. Certainly not something
that makes sense for the generalized schema. It actually doesn't make
sense for the Registry schema either, because this is the server.json
that _users will submit_, i.e. the _input_ into the Registry publication
API. `release_date` will be a piece of _output_ metadata. The Registry
API will be free to append such extra metadata for GET /:id requests of
servers, and the data can be present in the OpenAPI spec, but it does
not need to be in the registry-server.json JSON schema.~
- Note this is no longer in this PR; rebased on #168 which included it
- Removed unnecessary enums from the generalized `schema.json`
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
This is in support of
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/159, to make it
easier, I hope. My team noticed some differences in the JSON schema,
most notably the "choices" property was missing. I tried to write a tool
to do this but slowed down since I am not experienced with Go. This is a
first pass, maybe someone else can finish the tooling.
I restructured the JSON schema to break out child objects like the YAML
file, and brought the descriptions and example into sync. The only
differences are two extra properties in the YAML which are computed by
the server:
- `VersionDetail.is_latest` is not present in the JSON schema, computed
by the registry based on
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/158
- `Server.id` is not present in the JSON schema, generated by the
registry
The idea is the a tool could look at ServerDetail in the YAML and then
generate the schema.json with minimal fix-ups (add a root title, remove
`VersionDetail.is_latest` and `Server.id`.
~Question for @tadasant - should `VersionDetail.release_date` be in the
JSON schema? I think _no_ (and let it be computed) but it's there right
now.~ - aligned with
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/167 and removed
## How Has This Been Tested?
I have tested the JSON schema against the sample server.json in the repo
(files and markdown blocks).
## Breaking Changes
None.
## 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
- [ ] 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
-->
