Originally by @dmartinol. This branch is an attempt by @domdomegg to fix
the merge conflicts...
---
## Motivation and Context
Closes#145
Add comprehensive validation for named arguments in MCP server packages
to ensure argument names, values, and defaults follow proper format
conventions. This prevents common issues where argument names contain
embedded values or descriptions, and where values/defaults incorrectly
start with the argument name itself.
Key changes:
- Add ArgumentValidator with validation rules for named argument format
- Enhance PackageValidator to validate runtime and package arguments
- Update import process to log warnings for invalid servers instead of
failing
- Fix 396 servers in seed.json with malformed named arguments
- Extended `validate-examples` tool to apply the object validator (it
was completely missed before)
- Add comprehensive test coverage for all validation scenarios
Examples of fixes applied:
- "--directory <path>" → "--directory" with value "<path>"
- "--with-editable $REPO" → "--with-editable" with value "$REPO"
- "recipient@example.com" → "--recipient" (proper argument naming)
All servers now pass validation during both API publishing and data
import.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
## How Has This Been Tested?
With ad-hoc unit tests.
Manual integration tests of built artifact and the seed data.
## Breaking Changes
New registrations need to follow the argument name conventions,
otherwise the import would fail for the inconsistent servers.
## Types of changes
- [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)
- [ ] 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
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
---------
Signed-off-by: Daniele Martinoli <dmartino@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Daniele Martinoli <dmartino@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Thanks Camila for being a great Go consultant and advising on how to
tidy this up!
(I'm still a lil grumpy about some parts, but it's in much better shape
😄)
- Consolidated publisher extension validation into a single function.
- Updated the `Publish` and `EditServer` methods to directly use
`XPublisher` from the request.
- Removed outdated tests for publisher extension extraction and
validation.
- Introduced new validation functions for server details and remote URL
matching.
- Enhanced error handling for server name format and remote URL
validation.
- Updated existing tests to reflect changes in validation logic and
structure.
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Things were starting to become a bit spaghetti-y after lots of small PRs
and contributions from many people. Camila and I went through and
figured out how we could make this a lot cleaner.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Tested locally, plus all the integration and unit tests still pass.
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
None
---------
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 PR eliminates duplicate struct definitions by migrating
the publisher tool to use canonical types from pkg/model, creating a
single source of truth across the codebase. The publisher tool
previously had its own copies of structs that were duplicated, ie.
ServerJSON, Package, Repository, VersionDetail, EnvironmentVariable,
RuntimeArgument and a few others which was not optimal
**Changes in the PR:**
- Refactored the structs to single canonical types located at pkg/model
- Refactor the implementation to use/build canonical structures directly
- Remove all duplicate definitions (5 structs eliminated)
- Publisher now uses model.ServerJSON, model.Package, model.Repository,
etc.
- Renamed some of the structs to better reflect their use case, i.e.
ServerJSON instead of ServerDetail
- Fixes an issue where the Remote property was missing from the previous
publisher copy of the Server
**Benefits:**
- Single source of truth - Schema changes in one place
- Type safety - Compiler catches mismatches
- Enhanced validation - Field constraints and bson tags
- Zero breaking changes - Same CLI interface and JSON output
- Future-proof - New canonical fields automatically available
Supersedes: #217 and #240
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Locally
## 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: -->
- [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)
- [ ] 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>
## 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>
