Align the server.json schema with the YAML #168
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
Author
|
@connor4312 - does this look reasonable to you? |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅ 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
tadasant
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2025
Member
tadasant
left a comment
tadasant
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This all makes sense to me! Thanks for restructuring this.
I intend to take a whack at the generation soon, will see how I go wielding Go code with Claude Code...
tadasant
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2025
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`
domdomegg
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2025
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes --> ## Motivation and Context This is in support of #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 #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 #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 -->
domdomegg
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2025
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`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation and Context
This is in support of #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_latestis not present in the JSON schema, computed by the registry based on Decide & document server versioning approach for server.json #158Server.idis not present in the JSON schema, generated by the registryThe 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_latestandServer.id.Question for @tadasant - should- aligned with #167 and removedVersionDetail.release_datebe in the JSON schema? I think no (and let it be computed) but it's there right now.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
Checklist
Additional context