## Summary
Simplified the schema structure by:
- Replacing `version_detail.version` with direct `version` field
- Removing unused `release_date` field from seed data
- Updating all API types, models, and tests to match new structure
- Maintaining backwards compatibility in API responses
This change makes the schema more intuitive and reduces nesting depth.
## Summary
- Adds `updated_since`, `search`, and `version` query parameters to `GET
/v0/servers`
- Enables incremental synchronization via RFC3339 timestamp filtering
- Provides simple substring search on server names
- Supports latest version filtering with `version=latest`
This implementation provides the core filtering capabilities needed for
efficient registry synchronization and improved server discovery.
Fixes#291Fixes#135
## Summary
- Add comprehensive security warnings to the `Argument` type in
server.schema.json
- Warn about command injection risks from user-provided input in
arguments
- Include concrete example of malicious payload (`;rm -rf
~/Development`)
- Recommend non-shell execution methods and user consent for safer
command execution
Fixes#41
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR addresses the feedback comments from #366
## 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? -->
No
## 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
-->
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
## Summary
Updates the `_meta` field structure to be compliant with the MCP
specification by using proper `prefix/name` format for vendor
extensions.
### Changes
- **Registry metadata**: `io.modelcontextprotocol.registry` →
`io.modelcontextprotocol.registry/official`
- **Publisher metadata**: `publisher` →
`io.modelcontextprotocol.registry/publisher-provided`
- **Database migration**: Updates indexes to use new field paths
- **Updated all code**: Service layer, validators, tests, and seed data
### Format Before
```json
{
"_meta": {
"publisher": { "license": "MIT" },
"io.modelcontextprotocol.registry": { "id": "...", "is_latest": true }
}
}
```
### Format After
```json
{
"_meta": {
"io.modelcontextprotocol.registry/publisher-provided": { "license": "MIT" },
"io.modelcontextprotocol.registry/official": { "id": "...", "is_latest": true }
}
}
```
This resolves the naming collision with the planned top-level
`publisher` field and ensures compliance with MCP specification
requirements.
Fixes#356
## Summary
Implements mandatory file hash validation for MCPB (MCP Bundle) packages
to ensure file integrity and security.
## Changes
- **Validator enforcement**: MCPB packages now require `file_sha256`
field at publish time
- **Test coverage**: Updated all MCPB test cases to include valid
SHA-256 hashes
- **Documentation**: Updated publisher guide and schema to reflect hash
requirement
- **Error handling**: Clear error message when hash is missing
## Security Impact
This ensures the complete security workflow for MCPB packages:
1. Authors generate and provide SHA-256 hashes when publishing
2. Registry validates hash is present (but doesn't verify content)
3. MCP clients validate hash matches downloaded file before installation
Fixes#351
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR introduces Goreleaser for the releases of the registry
server and the publisher CLI.
**Details:**
- Builds registry and publisher binaries for Linux, macOS, and Windows
(amd64 + arm64)
- Leverage GitHub's release process by creating releases directly from
GitHub's interface
- Added .goreleaser.yaml configuration
- New .github/workflows/release.yml workflow triggered by GitHub
releases
- Updated Docker tagging in deploy workflow (:latest and :semver(the
tag) for releases, :main-YYYYMMDD-sha for testing/development)
- Consolidated version handling in main.go files
- Added release documentation
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Locally (but we have to test it by creating a release, i.e. v0.0.1 once
this gets merged)
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
Yes, the notion of `latest` for the container image is now different
## 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. -->
- [ ] 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
-->
Related to #358
---------
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
## Motivation and Context
Docs currently don't have very clear organisation, and don't explain
core flows.
This fixes#89 (although we still might want to push these to
`https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/`), based on the plan there.
One minor change from that plan is that I merged tutorials and guides,
because they ended up basically being duplicates which I thought would
be annoying for us to keep in sync. Additionally in the Diátaxis
framework, tutorials and guides are separated by whether they are
focused on acquisition of skills (e.g. in a learning environment) or
application of skills (e.g. in a work environment). I expect the
registry to be something that will be used occasionally in a work
environment, rather than a fundamental 'learnable' skill so I think it's
reasonable not to have tutorials and fold these into guides.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Read through all these updated docs
- Unit and integration tests (that previously used examples.md and use
the schema) working
- Ran `npx markdown-link-check .` to check all the links work
## Breaking Changes
Links to old docs will break, but I don't think there are any. All
internal links have been checked and updated.
## 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
Add example for MCP servers embedded inside a CLI tool and update
example validator count.
## Motivation and Context
Document how to model CLI-embedded MCP servers using existing
packages/arguments, per discussion
[#274](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/discussions/274).
No schema changes.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Ran validators: schemas valid; 11/11 examples pass.
- Scripts: ./tools/validate-schemas.sh, ./tools/validate-examples.sh
## Breaking Changes
None.
## Types of changes
- [ ] 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
- [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
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [x] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
Startup reference: [Agentic integrations - Snyk MCP
Server](https://docs.snyk.io/integrations/developer-guardrails-for-agentic-workflows)
---------
Co-authored-by: Adam Jones <adamj@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: adam jones <adamj+git@anthropic.com>
Adds an optional `subfolder` field to the Repository object in
server.json schema to support MCP servers located within subdirectories
of monorepo structures.
## Motivation and Context
Addresses issue #360 .
The current MCP registry schema doesn't explicitly define how to
reference servers that are located within a subdirectory of a Git
repository (a "monorepo" structure). This is a common pattern (e.g.,
[microsoft/mcp](https://github.com/microsoft/mcp) &
[awslabs/mcp](https://github.com/awslabs/mcp).
## How Has This Been Tested?
- **Validator tests**: Added 6 new test cases covering valid subfolders
and security validation (path traversal, absolute paths, invalid
characters, etc.)
- **Schema validation**: All 11 examples in `examples.md` validate
successfully against both `server.schema.json` and
`registry-schema.json`
- **End-to-end validation**: Publisher tool (`mcp-publisher init`) works
correctly and generates valid templates without subfolder
- **Backward compatibility**: Existing server.json files without
subfolder continue to work unchanged
## Breaking Changes
**None.** This is a fully backward-compatible change:
- The `subfolder` field is optional (uses `omitempty` JSON tag)
- Existing server.json files work unchanged
- Publisher tools generate valid templates without subfolder by default
- All existing validation and schemas remain compatible
## Types of changes
- [ ] 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)
- [x] 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
- [x] I have added or updated documentation as needed
### Implementation Details
**Schema Changes:**
- Added `subfolder` property to Repository definition in
`server.schema.json` and `openapi.yaml`
- Field is optional with description and example (`"src/everything"`)
**Go Model:**
- Added `Subfolder string` field to Repository struct with
`json:"subfolder,omitempty"` tag
- Maintains backward compatibility through omitempty behavior
**Security-Focused Validation:**
- Validates subfolder is a clean relative path (no leading `/`)
- Prevents path traversal attacks (no `..` sequences)
- Blocks malformed paths (no trailing `/`, empty segments, invalid
characters)
- Uses regex validation for allowed characters: `^[a-zA-Z0-9\-_./]+$`
**Documentation:**
- Added monorepo example to `examples.md` demonstrating subfolder usage
- Updated `repository_references.md` with concise subfolder
documentation
- Maintained consistency across all documentation with same example path
**Testing:**
- 6 new integration tests in validator covering security and format
validation
- Updated example count validation tool for new example
- All existing tests continue to pass
### Design Decisions
1. **Optional by design**: Most servers don't need subfolder
(single-repo pattern is common)
2. **Clean separation**: Repository URL stays clean, subfolder is
separate metadata
3. **Security first**: Comprehensive validation prevents common
path-based attacks
4. **Publisher tool unchanged**: Default templates don't include
subfolder to avoid confusion for typical use cases
This enables publishers with monorepo structures to clearly specify
server locations while maintaining simplicity for the common
single-repository case.
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR:
* Adds a new `transport` type used in Package and Remotes
* Added `docker` to the `runtime_hint` examples
* Added support for templated URLs. It is available for streamable-http
and sse transports for Packages. I didn't thought of reasons to have
this for Remotes, but we can enable it if needed.
* Added validation for templated URLs so we can ensure all referenced
placeholder variables are available.
* For streamable-http and SSE transport types the URL is now a required
property
* Updated the publisher init command to reflect these changes
* Updated the seed.json file
* Added unit tests for the transport type related changes
* Updated the server.json schema and the external pkg structs to reflect
the new transport type
* Updated the examples
Thanks to @kkkarthik for spotting it! 🙏
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Ran the tests locally
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
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. -->
- [ ] 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>
Following PR #350, added documentation for new validation requirements:
- Registry validators now require ownership verification metadata
- Updated prerequisites to include validation mechanism requirement
- Added implementation steps for registry validators
- Included validation examples for existing registries (npm, pypi,
nuget, oci, mcpb)
Fixes#361
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>
## Summary
- Add terms of service documentation in docs/terms.md
This establishes the legal terms for using the MCP registry service.
Fixes#294
---------
Co-authored-by: claude[bot] <209825114+claude[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg@users.noreply.github.com>
Fixes#96
## Motivation and Context
See #96
## How Has This Been Tested?
Has some unit and integration tests, still needs proper testing of the
different registry types
## Breaking Changes
Yes, new package uploads will need extra verification
## 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)
- [ ] Documentation update
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Addresses
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/340#discussion_r2316217614
## 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? -->
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>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR:
* Adds the Transport Type property to Packages. _Even though most
packaged MCP servers are stdio this is not always the case so it's nice
to have the option to specify this for clients._
* Adds a constant for the "stdio" type
* Renames the "streamable" one to "streamable-http" (matching better how
the spec refers to it)
* Updates the seed.file to reflect these changes
## 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: -->
- [ ] 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. -->
- [ ] 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
-->
This was discussed in
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/discussions/200
---------
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
The Server schema should not have its own `id` property as the ID is
managed by the registry system through the
`_meta["io.modelcontextprotocol.registry"].id` field.
Fixes#336🤖 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>
## Summary
- Updates all server.json examples to use `io.github` namespace instead
of `com.github`
- Fixes validator test case to use proper domain format
- Aligns with standard reverse domain name convention for GitHub-hosted
projects
This change improves consistency across documentation examples and
follows established naming conventions.
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.
## Summary
Move the publisher CLI from `tools/publisher/` to `cmd/publisher/` as
it's a proper application rather than a development utility.
This addresses feedback from @rdimitrov in PR #324 that the publisher
CLI should be under `cmd/` since it's not really a tool in the same
sense as other helpers in the `tools/` folder.
## Changes
- Moved `tools/publisher/` directory to `cmd/publisher/`
- Updated Makefile build and clean targets
- Updated README.md documentation links
- Updated VS Code launch configuration
- Updated integration test script
- Updated FAQ documentation
- Fixed Go import paths in publisher code
---------
Co-authored-by: claude[bot] <209825114+claude[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
- Added comprehensive admin operations documentation
- Included scripts for common server management tasks
Together with #315, #316, this fixes#182
## 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)
## Summary
This PR implements OIDC authentication support for admin users,
specifically configured for Google Cloud Identity. The implementation
includes:
- Configurable OIDC authentication endpoints and validation
- Google Cloud Identity integration for admin access
- JWT token validation and user session management
- Deployment configuration updates for OIDC provider settings
Fixes#283
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Noticed that the path for openapi.yaml was no longer working. This PR
fixes that.
## 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)
- [ ] 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
-->
## 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>
<!-- 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
- Restructure main README to focus on registry purpose and quick start
guide
- Streamline docs/README.md with better organization and linking
- Update FAQ with current publishing methods, security approach, and
community practices
- Simplify roadmap to focus on go-live blockers rather than exhaustive
backlog
- Add ecosystem diagram to visualize registry architecture
## 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>
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>
Fixes#228
## Motivation and Context
See #19
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Run locally
- Run in docker compose
- Run infra in minikube
- Unit and integration tests all passing :)
## Breaking Changes
Yes: users will not be able to access any data they used to have in
custom mongodb. We are accepting this breaking change, given the
registry is in experimental development status.
## 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)
- [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 have not implemented connection pooling support for simplicity, and
because cloudnative-pg already provides built-in connection pooling with
pgBouncer so if we want it later we can switch to this endpoint easily.
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>
## 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>
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#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
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
-->
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
Add more information about the value field under Input in the API doc.
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
the descrioption for
[value](81e5174a59/docs/openapi.yaml (L219))
is not clearly.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
No need.
## 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: -->
- [ ] 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
- [ 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
-->
