Is this only about remote MCP servers? The instructions all seem to contain a URL, but personally almost all the MCP servers I'm running locally are stdio based and not networked. Are you planning to support those in some way?
There's also this new effort by Anthropic to provide a packaging system for MCP servers, called MCPB or MCP Bundles[1]. A bundle is a zip file with a manifest inside it, a bit like how Chrome extensions are structured (maybe VSCode extensions too?).
Is this something you're looking to integrate with? I can't say I have seen any MCPB files anywhere just yet, but with a focus on simple installs and given that Anthropic introduced MCP in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised if this new format also got some traction. These archives could contain a lot more data than the small amount you're currently encoding in the URL though[2].
That's a good point, we really think that the future of MCP servers are remote servers, as running "random" software that has little to no boundaries, no verification or similar shouldn't be a thing. Is there a specific reason, you prefer stio servers over http servers? Which servers are you using?
> Is there a specific reason, you prefer stio servers over http servers?
Yes: the main reason is that I control which applications are configured with the command/args/environment to run the MCP server, instead of exposing a service on my localhost that any process on my computer can connect to (or worse, on my network if it listens on all interfaces).
I mostly run MCP servers that I've written, but otherwise most of the third party ones I use are related to software development and AI providers (e.g. context7, Replicate, ElevenLabs…). The last two costs me money when their tools are invoked, so I'm not about to expose them on a port given that auth doesn't happen at the protocol level.
Most software we install locally is at least distributed via a trusted party (App Store, Play Store, Linux package repos, etc) and have a valid signatur (Desktop & Mobile) or are contained in some way (containers, browser extensions, etc..).
In the case of MCP, remote servers at least protect you from local file leakages.
Is this only about remote MCP servers? The instructions all seem to contain a URL, but personally almost all the MCP servers I'm running locally are stdio based and not networked. Are you planning to support those in some way?
There's also this new effort by Anthropic to provide a packaging system for MCP servers, called MCPB or MCP Bundles[1]. A bundle is a zip file with a manifest inside it, a bit like how Chrome extensions are structured (maybe VSCode extensions too?).
Is this something you're looking to integrate with? I can't say I have seen any MCPB files anywhere just yet, but with a focus on simple installs and given that Anthropic introduced MCP in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised if this new format also got some traction. These archives could contain a lot more data than the small amount you're currently encoding in the URL though[2].
[1] https://www.npmjs.com/package/@anthropic-ai/mcpb
[2] https://github.com/anthropics/mcpb/blob/main/README.md#direc...
That's a good point, we really think that the future of MCP servers are remote servers, as running "random" software that has little to no boundaries, no verification or similar shouldn't be a thing. Is there a specific reason, you prefer stio servers over http servers? Which servers are you using?
Thanks for the mcpb hint, we will look into it.
> Is there a specific reason, you prefer stio servers over http servers?
Yes: the main reason is that I control which applications are configured with the command/args/environment to run the MCP server, instead of exposing a service on my localhost that any process on my computer can connect to (or worse, on my network if it listens on all interfaces).
I mostly run MCP servers that I've written, but otherwise most of the third party ones I use are related to software development and AI providers (e.g. context7, Replicate, ElevenLabs…). The last two costs me money when their tools are invoked, so I'm not about to expose them on a port given that auth doesn't happen at the protocol level.
> as running "random" software that has little to no boundaries, no verification or similar shouldn't be a thing
Would you class all locally running software this way, and all remotely running software the inverse?
Most software we install locally is at least distributed via a trusted party (App Store, Play Store, Linux package repos, etc) and have a valid signatur (Desktop & Mobile) or are contained in some way (containers, browser extensions, etc..).
In the case of MCP, remote servers at least protect you from local file leakages.
Nice! Right when I need it! Thank you