Skip to content

Index: nine findings from one audit of a large MCP server against the specification #1257

Open

Description

@jmrplens

I maintain a GitLab MCP server built on this SDK: about 865 tools on its individual surface, three tool surfaces, stdio and streamable HTTP, resource subscriptions and OAuth. I audited it against the MCP specification and against the SDK, and recorded every finding that belongs upstream rather than in my own code. Nine of them concern this SDK and have no fix yet: each was reproduced against a real deployment or against the compiled binary driven over its own transport, each names the specification clause, documentation page or semantic convention it fails, and each is pinned by a test I can hand you.

I am filing them as separate issues so that each can be triaged, labelled and closed on its own. This one is the index, so you can see the set at once and see that it comes from one audit rather than from nine unrelated reports. I checked every finding against current main before filing; the individual issues give the version I first observed it on.

Specification conformance, with a fix offered

Each of these four is a conformance defect with a pull request against it: a minimal change in the SDK's own style, a test that fails before it and passes after, and go test ./... green. Two of them have merged.

Found during review of the pull requests above

Two defects that the review of #1266 turned up rather than the original audit, each filed with a pull request in the same shape as the four above. Both have merged.

Already filed

API the SDK does not expose, proposal only

These four cannot be closed without new exported API, so they went out as proposals rather than as pull requests: each body states the requirement, cites the SDK code that stands in the way, and offers a concrete Go signature together with the alternatives I considered. Three of them, #1263, #1264 and #1265, are waiting on your decision about the shape, and I will write the pull request once you say which one you want.

Filed since

Every finding above is now filed. The nine of the original audit link back here.

Activity

  1. jmrplens commented on Oct 5, 2026

    @jmrplens
    ContributorAuthor

    @guglielmo-san, a short status note on my pull requests and proposals from this set that are still open, for whenever you have a moment.

    All three were green when I last updated them on 2026-09-29, and they still merge into current main without conflicts. GitHub shows them behind again, as it will after every merge, so I have left them as they are; if you want any of them updated or rebased, tell me and I will do it.

    #1263, #1264 and #1265 are still waiting on your call about the shape. Each lists the alternatives I considered, and once you pick a shape for one of them I will write its pull request.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions