Skip to content

Conversation

twishabansal
Copy link
Contributor

@twishabansal twishabansal commented Aug 26, 2025

In this PR, the MCP protocol does not yet support Auth related functionality such as Authorized Invocations and Authenticated Parameters.

Therefore, the default is still the Toolbox Protocol here.

Note: This PR is currently based on two separate PRs. The protocol is added in #348. This will be updated once the protocol object PR is merged.

@twishabansal twishabansal changed the base branch from main to mcp-restructure August 26, 2025 10:06
@twishabansal twishabansal changed the title Mcp transport implement feat: Add mcp transport protocol Aug 26, 2025
@twishabansal twishabansal force-pushed the mcp-transport-implement branch from 7e58222 to 78014d7 Compare September 1, 2025 10:56
@twishabansal twishabansal changed the base branch from mcp-restructure to client-transport-decouple September 2, 2025 07:33
@twishabansal twishabansal changed the base branch from client-transport-decouple to mcp-restructure September 2, 2025 07:47
@twishabansal twishabansal force-pushed the mcp-transport-implement branch from 0d87f13 to 83030dc Compare September 2, 2025 07:50
@twishabansal twishabansal changed the base branch from mcp-restructure to client-transport-decouple September 2, 2025 07:57
@twishabansal
Copy link
Contributor Author

/gcbrun

@twishabansal twishabansal marked this pull request as ready for review September 2, 2025 09:46
@twishabansal twishabansal requested a review from a team as a code owner September 2, 2025 09:46
Copy link
Contributor

@kurtisvg kurtisvg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

At a high level, I'm concerned with the type safety of this approach. Given we have such concrete types defined by MCP, we should be re-implementing those for each version and ensuring requests and responses match them correctly. As is, this method seems difficult to scale as MCP evolves over time.

An example of what this should look like is probably more then like protocol.py is defined here.

@kurtisvg kurtisvg added the priority: p1 Important issue which blocks shipping the next release. Will be fixed prior to next release. label Oct 10, 2025
@twishabansal twishabansal requested a review from kurtisvg October 14, 2025 09:34
@twishabansal
Copy link
Contributor Author

At a high level, I'm concerned with the type safety of this approach. Given we have such concrete types defined by MCP, we should be re-implementing those for each version and ensuring requests and responses match them correctly. As is, this method seems difficult to scale as MCP evolves over time.

An example of what this should look like is probably more then like protocol.py is defined here.

I have refactored this PR accordingly. Please have a look!

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

Labels

priority: p1 Important issue which blocks shipping the next release. Will be fixed prior to next release.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants