Skip to content

Rename mcp.json to server.json #106

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged

Conversation

chenmingyong0423
Copy link
Contributor

Rename mcp.json to server.json

Motivation and Context

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

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)
  • Documentation update

Checklist

  • I have read the MCP Documentation
  • 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

Related to #86

@tadasant tadasant requested a review from sridharavinash May 31, 2025 16:37
@punkpeye
Copy link

punkpeye commented Jun 2, 2025

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

@tadasant
Copy link
Contributor

tadasant commented Jun 3, 2025

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.

@sridharavinash
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@sridharavinash sridharavinash left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for your contribution 💖 ! Once all the checks are 🟢 , we can merge this in.

@sridharavinash sridharavinash enabled auto-merge (squash) June 3, 2025 18:52
@sridharavinash sridharavinash merged commit d16328e into modelcontextprotocol:main Jun 3, 2025
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants