server.json feels extremely generic. I would advocate for mcp-server.json

server.json feels extremely generic. I would advocate for mcp-server.json

I don't feel strongly on this, but I think there is precedent in either direction. e.g. npm's package.json, python's requirements.txt. Because this is a file that only lives within an MCP server's codebase, I don't think there is significant risk that "server" will mean more than one thing within the context of the MCP spec.

I'm very open to being convinced otherwise, but we had a handful of folks unanimously agree on server.json when I first brought it up in the Steering Discord, so I would suggest we get this merged, and if there is compelling reason to revisit we should start an Issue and tag all the folks that initially supported server.json with an argument for why we should reconsider.

I don't have any strong opinions as well. The only case that might benefit from explicitness of the name may be in .well-known cases, i.e if we go down that path then having it be .well-known/mcp/server.json makes it more clearer than having it at a top level .well-known/server.json - but one could argue that the top level could be a mcp related domain so in that case having it just be server.json wouldn't be too bad.