mcp-review

name: mcp-review description: >- Review MCP server specifications and updates for compliance, security, and quality. Use when evaluating server.json files, PRs adding/updating servers, or assessing MCP server changes. NOT for creating new entries (use add-mcp-server instead). allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob Bash WebFetch

MCP Server Specification Review

You are an expert reviewer for the ToolHive Registry. Evaluate server.json files and MCP server submissions for spec compliance, security, registry inclusion criteria, and completeness.

For detailed field specs, see server-json-spec.md. For full registry inclusion criteria, see registry-criteria.md and server-criteria.md.

Registry Layout (read first)

The repo has two server registries, and submissions land in the wrong one often enough to check first:

• registries/toolhive/servers/ — the contribution path. All new submissions go here.
• registries/official/ — a curated subset maintained by the ToolHive team. Contributors should not hand-add entries here.

Both normalize every entry under the io.github.stacklok publisher namespace (name: io.github.stacklok/<server-name> and the _meta publisher key), with a repo-hosted icon.svg. A PR that adds a file under registries/official/, or uses a third-party namespace like io.github.<contributor>, is a finding — not a style nit. task catalog:validate does not catch either; verify by eye and by comparing against a neighboring entry (jq '{name, ns: (._meta[...]|keys)}' <neighbor>/server.json).

Review Workflow

Step 1: Identify Change Scope

Determine what you're reviewing:

• New server submission → Full review (spec + repository assessment + inclusion criteria)
• Version update → Focused review (changed fields, both identifier and _meta key updated, changelog)
• Config change → Targeted review (just the changed aspects + security implications)

Step 2: Validate server.json

Read the server.json and check, in order:

1. Location & namespace — file is under registries/toolhive/servers/<name>/; name and the _meta publisher key are both io.github.stacklok (see Registry Layout)
2. Server type — packages (container) or remotes (remote)?
3. Required top-level fields — $schema, name, description, title, version, repository, icons
4. Package/remote config — identifier format, transport type valid for server type
5. Extension key match — _meta key must exactly equal packages[0].identifier or remotes[0].url
6. Extension fields — tier, status, tools, overview all present and valid
7. Tier matches maintainer — Official is reserved for the ToolHive team, the MCP spec authors, or the platform owner of the integrated service. A third-party contributor's server is Community, regardless of what the PR claims (don't trust the field — check who maintains the repo)
8. Icons — repo-hosted icon.svg (mimeType: image/svg+xml) AND an icon.svg file present in the server dir. Flag external icon URLs (e.g. a vendor PNG) — they're a stability/supply-chain risk and break the convention
9. Overview format — starts with ## Title\n\n followed by 3-5 sentences
10. No auto-populated fields — reject if metadata.* or tool_definitions present in new submissions
11. Remote-specific — tags include "remote"; oauth_config present if OAuth required
12. Container-specific — transport.url present when type is streamable-http

Run task catalog:validate to catch schema-level issues. Note its limits: it validates the JSON schema, not the registry-location, namespace, tier-semantics, or icon-host conventions above — a passing validate does not mean the entry is correctly placed or classified.

Remote endpoint check (remotes only): confirm the URL actually serves MCP and the advertised tools match. Don't trust the PR description:

curl -sS -X POST "<remote-url>" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream" \
  -d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"initialize","params":{"protocolVersion":"2025-06-18","capabilities":{},"clientInfo":{"name":"review","version":"0"}}}'
# then tools/list (id:2, method:"tools/list") and compare names against the entry's `tools`

A plain GET often 404s on streamable-HTTP endpoints — that's not a failure; use the initialize POST. If the endpoint needs auth, note it and confirm oauth_config/auth handling is declared.

Step 3: Security Review

Must verify:

• Image tag pinned to specific version (never latest)
• Secrets marked with isSecret: true in environmentVariables
• No filesystem paths in permissions (users configure mounts at runtime)
• Network permissions scoped — no insecure_allow_all: true unless justified (e.g., fetch servers)
• Extension key matches identifier/URL exactly
• Provenance block present (Sigstore or GitHub Attestations) — applies to all tiers

Step 4: Repository Assessment (New Submissions)

For new servers, assess the source repository against registry inclusion criteria. See server-criteria.md for the full checklist and verification commands.

Critical checks (use gh CLI, GitHub MCP tools, or WebFetch — whichever is available):

1. License — fetch the repo's license; must be permissive (see quick reference)
2. Dependency automation — look for Dependabot (.github/dependabot.yml) OR Renovate (renovate.json, .renovaterc, .renovaterc.json, .github/renovate.json)
3. Security policy — check for SECURITY.md
4. CI workflows — list .github/workflows/ contents; confirm CI runs and passes
5. Unanswered issues — issues open 3-4 weeks without any response is a red flag
6. Recent activity — check last 5 commits for recency
7. Releases — list recent releases; confirm semver tags and changelog
8. Repo & author maturity — repo age, star count, contributor diversity, and GitHub account age. A days-old repo, zero stars, no releases, and a single brand-new account are a cluster of red flags (e.g. gh repo view <owner>/<repo> --json createdAt,stargazerCount,licenseInfo,pushedAt)
9. Documentation relevance — the README must actually describe this server and its tools. A generic or boilerplate README (e.g. an unmodified upstream template that documents unrelated demo tools) fails the documentation criterion even when a README file exists

Inclusion criteria summary:

Step 5: Version Update Review (Existing Servers)

For updates to existing entries:

1. What changed? — Diff the fields
2. Both locations updated? — Image tag in packages[0].identifier AND _meta extension key
3. Changelog — What's new in the upstream release?
4. Tool changes — Tools added or removed?
5. Breaking changes — Transport, env vars, or auth changes?
6. Security — New permissions, scopes, or dependencies?

Focus review on changed aspects, not full re-review.

Output Format

## MCP Server Review

**Server**: <name>
**Type**: Container / Remote
**Repository**: <url>
**Verdict**: APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT

---

### Inclusion Criteria

| Criteria | Status | Notes |
|----------|--------|-------|
| Open Source | Pass/Fail | |
| License | Pass/Fail | <license> |
| Security Practices | Pass/Fail | |
| Code Quality | Pass/Fail | |
| Stability | Pass/Fail | |
| Documentation | Pass/Fail | |
| Community | Pass/Fail | |

### Spec Compliance

| Check | Status | Notes |
|-------|--------|-------|
| Location & namespace (`toolhive/`, `io.github.stacklok`) | Pass/Fail | |
| Required top-level fields | Pass/Fail | |
| Package/Remote config | Pass/Fail | |
| Extension key match | Pass/Fail | |
| Tier matches maintainer | Pass/Fail | |
| Transport valid | Pass/Fail | |
| Remote endpoint serves MCP (remotes) | Pass/Fail/N/A | |
| Icons (repo-hosted SVG + file present) | Pass/Fail | |
| Overview format | Pass/Fail | |
| Tools listed (match live server) | Pass/Fail | |
| No auto-populated fields | Pass/Fail | |
| Tags (remote tag if applicable) | Pass/Fail | |

### Security Review

- [ ] Image tag pinned (not `latest`)
- [ ] Secrets marked `isSecret: true`
- [ ] No filesystem paths in permissions
- [ ] Network permissions scoped
- [ ] Extension key matches identifier/URL
- [ ] Provenance configured

### Findings

**Issues (must fix):**
1. ...

**Suggestions (optional):**
1. ...

---

### Validation
Run `task catalog:validate` to verify spec compliance.

Submitting the Verdict

When posting to GitHub, the verdict must carry its blocking state — a plain comment does not gate the merge. Map the verdict to the right gh mechanism:

gh pr comment posts an ordinary comment that does not block — only use it for FYI notes, never to record a REJECT/REQUEST_CHANGES decision. You cannot --approve/--request-changes your own PR; for those, leave a --comment review and ask a maintainer to gate it.

Error Handling

Quick Reference

Severity (what blocks vs. what's a note)

A Required miss is REQUEST_CHANGES or REJECT. Expected misses are called out and weigh on the verdict. Weighed signals inform borderline calls.

Valid Values

Workflow Commands

task catalog:validate                                             # Validate all entries
task catalog:build                                                # Build registry
jq '.servers["<name>"]' build/toolhive/registry.json              # Check container entry
jq '.remote_servers["<name>"]' build/toolhive/registry.json       # Check remote entry