Add HTTP-based authentication to prove domain ownership, similar to
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/238's DNS
authentication but using HTTPS well-known URIs instead of DNS TXT
records.
Fixes#280
## Motivation and Context
Some organizations don't have easy access to DNS records, but can easily
deploy web assets. They would therefore prefer to be able to complete a
HTTP challenge rather than a DNS one to authenticate to the registry.
This would in some way mirror ACME challenges: where you can do a DNS-01
or a HTTP-01 challenge.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Tested locally by stubbing out the HTTP getter
- Added unit tests
## Breaking Changes
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)
- [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)
- [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
I concern I had when building this that it might expose us to SSRF
attacks.
I think on reflection this is not a significant problem:
- We only GET a fixed file `.well-known/mcp-registry-auth` (redirects
disallowed) after sanitizing the domain, and then also don't expose the
response to the user. This means the user shouldn't be able to hit
anything very interesting.
- The information they might get is what domains/servers exist in the
network. Our infrastructure is already all open-source, so attackers
aren't getting any additional real info by prodding at the environment
this way.
Fixes#270Closes#233
Adds support for DNS-based authentication for proving ownership of a
particular domain. E.g. if you can add a TXT record to `anthropic.com`,
you can publish anything at `com.anthropic/*` or `com.anthropic.*`.
Notes:
- Uses Ed25519 signatures with 15-second timestamp windows to prevent
replay attacks
- Supports multiple public keys in DNS TXT records for key rotation
scenarios
- Publisher CLI supports DNS auth via --dns-domain and --dns-private-key
flags
- Includes key generation commands in publisher README for easy setup
## Motivation and Context
This implements DNS-based public/private key authentication to allow
people to actually publish at their own domains. Currently,
authentication requires GitHub accounts which limits publishing to the
io.github.* namespace.
DNS-based auth enables:
- Publishing under your actual domain (e.g., com.anthropic/* for
anthropic.com)
- Independence from GitHub or other external auth providers
- Organizations managing their own keys and access to publishing
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Unit tests cover signature verification, DNS TXT parsing, timestamp
validation, and error cases
- Tested locally by editing my own DNS records
- All existing auth methods covered by passing tests
## Breaking Changes
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)
- [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)
- [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
Will be adding HTTP challenge auth in a similar way as a separate PR,
e.g. for verifying you own `github.com` by hosting a
`github.com/.well-known/mcp-server-challenge` or similar. Just
mentioning this as we discussed HTTP challenges as closely related to
DNS challenges elsewhere, and want to reassure reviewer that this hasn't
been forgotten with this approach. :) Update: tracking the HTTP auth in
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/280
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>
Adds support for auth'ing to the registry via [GitHub Actions
OIDC](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/concepts/security/openid-connect).
Fixes#271
## Motivation and Context
People will probably want to publish to the registry from CI
environments. DNS auth can work here fine
(https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/270). But for
people who haven't set up DNS, the standard GitHub device flow won't
really work here. We could make this nice by supporting GitHub Actions
OIDC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Tested locally with a real GitHub OIDC token from a personal repo.
## Breaking Changes
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)
- [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)
- [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
Fixes#264. Adds endpoints:
```
/v0/auth/github # exchange a github token for a registry token that gives you access to namespaces io.github.username and io.github.org for your orgs
/v0/auth/none # get a registry token for namespace io.modelcontextprotocol.anonymous (only for testing/local dev purposes)
```
Updates `/v0/publish` to accept one of these registry tokens.
## Motivation and Context
See #264
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Running locally and getting a token from `/v0/auth/none` and then
publishing to `/v0/publish`
- Updating the integration tests that get a token and then publish, and
them passing
## Breaking Changes
This is a breaking change to the auth API. This is fine for registry
given it's not deployed yet.
## 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
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: claude[bot] <209825114+claude[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg@users.noreply.github.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 -->
Inline ServerDetail fields in PublishRequest
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Fix#55
## 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: -->
- [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. -->
- [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
-->
94c19fafa4/scripts/test_publish.sh (L61-L102)
---------
Co-authored-by: Avinash Sridhar <sridharavinash@users.noreply.github.com>
I originally introduced `package_canonical` into the API schema because,
at the time, we were thinking to "pin" the version of the MCP server to
_one_ of the referenced source code packages.
We are no longer doing this (we are maintaining a separate notion of
`version` unique to the MCP server), so I don't believe
`package_canonical` is needed anymore. Does anyone see otherwise?
This change removes all mentions in READMEs and usages in code.
* Update the model to handle new changes to schema based on https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/33
* Made the import script a little simpler.
* Add a new updated seed file
* update template mcp.json file for publisher
- Added authentication service and GitHub OAuth integration.
- Introduced new authentication methods and structures in the model.
- Updated the API to handle authentication during the publishing process.
- Created handlers for starting and checking the status of the OAuth flow.
- Enhanced the publish handler to validate authentication credentials.
- Updated configuration to include GitHub OAuth settings.
- Added tests for the OAuth flow and publishing with authentication.
- Updated documentation to reflect changes in the API and authentication process.
Work in progress .
This commit adds the core registry service implementation with methods to:
- Retrieve all registry entries
- List entries with cursor-based pagination
- Fetch specific server details by ID
