Should `repository` be required on Servers?

[andylouisqin]

Might be asked-and-answered but: is open-sourcing the server a requirement for inclusion in the metaregistry?

Since repository is required, it looks that way:

registry/docs/openapi.yaml

Lines 124 to 125 in 2f266c7

	repository:
	$ref: '#/components/schemas/Repository'

To take a real-world case: consider how PayPal has both a remote server (https://mcp.paypal.com/sse) and a local one. It seems like the remote one is a subset of the local one's tools, but not sure how we'd know whether that's true.

[tadasant]

I agree, repository should not be a required field / open source is not required. We should remove it from here + anywhere we're currently making that assumption in the code.

[andylouisqin]

Cool. On a similar note, how do you see versionDetail working for a remote-only closed-source server?

[tadasant]

Cool. On a similar note, how do you see versionDetail working for a remote-only closed-source server?

It's a good question. In theory, the remote server maintainer should publish an updated server.json any time they deploy a change to their remote server to update the serverInfo.version.

In practice, there isn't much utility in doing so unless that version bump impacts server.json components like required remote headers.

There may be more value for server maintainers to do this in the future as additional features like anti-tool poisoning tactics get put in place. It shouldn't be that hard for them to set up a CI pipeline to do this publish step.

Added note as something we should note on docs #89

[toby]

Fixed in #119