Experimental finding: Stars MCP server passes official SEP-2640 server conformance scenarios with single-source skill delivery

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#144 0 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
2/5
Tempo stimato
1-3 ore
Idoneità per principianti
52/100
Tipo di issue
Documentazione
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Attiva
Stack tecnologico
python
Ambito
documentation

Direzione di ricerca

Esamina experimental-findings.md e docs/findings-template.md per determinare dove collocare questo risultato riproducibile. Usa le evidenze collegate, i risultati di conformità e le limitazioni dichiarate per adattare il report se il formato corrente del repository è appropriato; l'attività è completata quando il risultato è documentato nella posizione preferita o la sua collocazione è stata chiarita.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

GitHub Stars Contributions MCP Server

Scope: this reports server-side protocol conformance and implementation findings only. Native host activation, automatic skill selection, and model adherence were not tested and are not claimed here.

Date: 2026-09-15

Implementation:

Approach tested:

Provider-owned Agent Skills colocated with the MCP server, exposed through the official io.modelcontextprotocol/skills extension (skills/list, skills/get) and lazy standard MCP Resources. The same canonical skills/* tree is also usable as a standalone Agent Plugin fallback; there is no second editable skill copy.

Setup:

  • Clients tested: official MCP Python SDK 2.2.0 in-memory Client; official modelcontextprotocol/conformance server runner pinned to commit 7169291ec0b68eb370fddcd9947313ab0d5e4156
  • Models tested: Not tested for this finding
  • Configuration notes: Python 3.12; real Stars server over Streamable HTTP for conformance; four canonical skills; static manifests; optional directoryRead deliberately not advertised

What was tested:

  • extension discovery;
  • deterministic/paginated skills/list;
  • direct skills/get without requiring a prior list call;
  • lazy resources/read of exact skill files;
  • SHA-256 + byte-size equality between manifests and returned bytes;
  • traversal / encoded traversal / symlink escape / malformed frontmatter / invalid identity / unknown URI / stale-manifest handling;
  • separation of Agent Skill metadata (allowed-tools) from server-side authorization;
  • official SEP-2640 server scenarios:
    • sep-2640-skills-enumeration;
    • sep-2640-skills-manifest;
    • sep-2640-skills-directory (optional-capability boundary);
  • standalone compatibility from the same root skills/* tree.

Results:

  • What worked: The official MCP Python SDK 2.x Extension, MethodBinding, ResourceBinding, FunctionResource, and normal Resources primitives were sufficient; no protocol fork or parallel FastMCP layer was necessary. Static manifest + lazy read passed the official server conformance scenarios above. The server can fail closed on resource drift and unsafe/unmanifested URIs. The same canonical root skill tree can serve MCP runtime delivery and a portable Agent Plugin fallback.
  • What didn't: No production model-facing host activation is demonstrated by this experiment. Passing SDK round-trips and official server conformance does not show that a host will automatically expose/select/load the served skill for the model.
  • What was surprising: directoryRead was unnecessary for the static repository-backed model; complete manifests plus normal Resources were sufficient for the tested contract. Also, the implementation exercise reinforced that advertised resource digests are snapshot-consistency evidence, not independent publisher attestation when the same server provides both digest and bytes.

Requirements or design questions addressed:

  • one canonical skill source with MCP and standalone delivery;
  • provider-side progressive disclosure and lazy loading;
  • resource integrity / path safety;
  • optional directory capability boundary;
  • distinction between protocol conformance and model-facing host activation;
  • runtime MCP delivery vs build-time dependency/catalog governance;
  • duplicate standalone/MCP origin handling.

Evidence and reproduction:

The repository CI includes an official-conformance workflow that starts the real server with Stars mutation tools disabled and executes the three SEP-2640 server scenarios above. PR #55 contains the implementation/evidence change and all scenario jobs passed. The same repository also has official-SDK client tests and negative security/integrity tests, so protocol unit evidence and conformance evidence are separate.

Limitations:

  • No claim of automatic model-context activation/adherence in Copilot, Claude, Codex, VS Code, or another production host.
  • The finding is strongest for static repository/package-backed skills; dynamic/multi-tenant skill generation may justify different manifest/directory behavior.
  • SHA-256/size are integrity/snapshot checks, not an independent trust/identity mechanism.
  • Client-side cross-origin collision handling remains host-dependent; the local policy is to preserve origin, never concatenate instruction bodies silently, and surface a conflict when same-name contents differ.

Sources and attribution:

Implementation and evidence by @svg153, derived from the public repository/PRs linked above. The architecture feedback has also been captured in https://github.com/svg153/skills/pull/68.

I am filing this as a reproducible experimental finding first because experimental-findings.md notes that current discussion is moving through WG channels. If maintainers prefer a documentation PR using docs/findings-template.md, I can adapt this into the repo's preferred current location.

Lingua principale
MDX
Stelle
760
Fork
66
Merge medio
1g 9h
PR unite (30g)
5

Preparare l'ambiente

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di modelcontextprotocol/ext-skills

Tutte le issue di modelcontextprotocol/ext-skills

Issue simili

Altre issue su Documentation

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.