Server logs a fabricated 'initialize' (with synthesized rmcp/3.8.0 peer identity) for no-initialize SEP-2567 requests, ignoring clientInfo from _meta
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 3 dias
@jamadeo já está trabalhando nisso.
Desde 3/11/2026.
Avaliação
Esta issue ainda não foi avaliada.
Descrição
Summary
On rmcp 3.8.0, a streamable-HTTP server emits a Service initialized as server peer_info=Some(InitializeRequestParams { ... }) INFO log line for every no-initialize (SEP-2567, protocol 2026-07-28) request, as though an initialize handshake had occurred. The logged peer identity is a synthesized Implementation { name: "rmcp", version: "3.8.0" }, and a clientInfo explicitly provided in the request's _meta (io.modelcontextprotocol/clientInfo) is ignored — never surfaced in the log.
This makes server-side logs actively misleading for client-behavior analysis: a sessionless 2.0 client appears in logs as a legacy initialize handshake from an rmcp client.
Environment
- rmcp 3.8.0, server role,
transport-streamable-http-server(StreamableHttpService+LocalSessionManager::default(), axumnest_service("/mcp", ...)) - Client: any no-initialize 2.0 caller (curl below; also observed with a real third-party client identifying as
zcode/0.17.1)
Reproduction
- Start any streamable-HTTP server built on rmcp 3.8 (e.g. the counter example) and note its stderr/journal.
- Send a no-initialize request (no
initializeever sent):
curl -sS -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8000/mcp \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' -H 'Accept: application/json, text/event-stream' \
-H 'MCP-Protocol-Version: 2026-07-28' -H 'Mcp-Method: tools/list' \
-d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"tools/list","params":{"_meta":{
"io.modelcontextprotocol/protocolVersion":"2026-07-28",
"io.modelcontextprotocol/clientInfo":{"name":"distinctive-probe-XYZ","version":"9.9.9"},
"io.modelcontextprotocol/clientCapabilities":{}}}}'
- The request succeeds (HTTP 200, tool list returned), and the server logs:
INFO serve_inner: rmcp::service: Service initialized as server peer_info=Some(InitializeRequestParams {
meta: None,
protocol_version: ProtocolVersion("2026-07-28"),
capabilities: ClientCapabilities { ... all None ... },
client_info: Implementation { name: "rmcp", title: None, version: "3.8.0", ... }
})
Two discrepancies vs. what actually happened on the wire:
- No
initializerequest was ever sent; the log fabricates one. - The client identified itself as
distinctive-probe-XYZ/9.9.9in_meta; the log showsrmcp/3.8.0.
Real-world impact
We spent three rounds of diagnosis mis-attributing a third-party client's behavior because its sessionless 2.0 requests were logged as initialize handshakes from "rmcp 3.8.0". This included incorrectly concluding the client used a legacy handshake and had a clientInfo of rmcp/3.8.0 (wire capture later disproved both). Details and retraction: zai-org/feedback#1372.
Suggested direction
- For no-initialize requests, log something that reflects the actual lifecycle (e.g.
stateless request served), notService initialized ... InitializeRequestParams. - Surface
io.modelcontextprotocol/clientInfofrom_metawhen present, so per-request identities are observable; if absent, make the synthesized default obviously synthetic (or omit identity from the log).
Happy to provide full tcpdump captures or a minimal repro project if useful.
- Linguagem predominante
- Rust
- Estrelas
- 4.1k
- Forks
- 694
- Merge médio
- 4d 9h
- PRs com merge (30d)
- 41
Preparar o ambiente
Inicia o contêiner de desenvolvimento do projeto no navegador, com a sua própria conta do GitHub.
- Sem Dockerfile nem arquivo Docker Compose
- Sem modelo de pull request
- Ler o guia de contribuição
Primeiros passos
- Leia a issue inteira e depois o guia de contribuição do projeto.
- Comente na issue dizendo que vai assumir — evita que duas pessoas façam o mesmo trabalho.
- Faça um fork do repositório e trabalhe em uma branch.
- Abra um pull request que referencie o número da issue.
Mais de modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk
-
Support tool exposure modes (direct / deferred / codemode) and client-side aggregation.Talvez já em andamento @jamadeo assumiu há 1 dia. Abertaenhancement P3 T-model T-service
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1437 · 1 comentário · 1 responsável ·
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 3 dias
-
Return MergedList<T> from list_all_* and drop the _with_cache_hint variantsTalvez já em andamento @DaleSeo assumiu há 5 dias. Abertaenhancement P3 ready for work T-service v4
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1430 · 1 responsável ·
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 3 dias
-
OAuth discovery drops explicit default ports from advertised issuer identifiersTalvez já em andamento @gocamille assumiu há 7 dias. Abertabug P1 ready for work T-security T-transport
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1420 · 4 comentários · 1 responsável ·
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 3 dias
-
`register_client` drops `client_secret_expires_at` from the registration responseTalvez já em andamento @gocamille assumiu há 9 dias. Abertabug P2 ready for work T-security
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1416 · 1 comentário · 1 responsável ·
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 3 dias
-
Typed client calls drop the parse error when a reply misses a required fieldTalvez já em andamento @gocamille assumiu há 9 dias. Abertaenhancement P2 ready for work T-core T-service
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1415 · 1 comentário · 1 responsável ·
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 3 dias
Todas as issues de modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk
Issues semelhantes
-
needs-triage tooling
Dificuldade 1/5 Menos de uma hora Facilidade para iniciantes 90/100
neilsh/stunt-reel#317 ·
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 1 dia
-
Dificuldade 2/5 1-3 horas Facilidade para iniciantes 84/100
storytold/craft-fonts#65 ·
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 2 dias
-
Dificuldade 2/5 1-3 horas Facilidade para iniciantes 86/100
storytold/craft-libs#723 ·
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 1 dia
-
Dificuldade 1/5 Menos de uma hora Facilidade para iniciantes 84/100
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 1 dia
-
Dificuldade 2/5 1-3 horas Facilidade para iniciantes 83/100
n0-computer/iroh#4669 · 1 comentário ·
Mantenedores costumam responder em até 1 dia