Bring this into the core MCP repo

[theodorachu]

We should standardize how we think about manifest.json and server.json with the core MCP project and fold this into the core project assuming interest from the MCP steering committee/community in making server distribution easier.

[joeyorlando]

+1 to this -- archestra.ai has chosen to define our MCP Server Catalog "manifest schema" as a superset of the "DXT schema" (defined here).

I think it would greatly benefit the MCP community, especially those building tooling around MCP servers (ex. security/runtime tooling), if we had a more prevalent definition of "what an MCP server looks like and how it operates" (not necessarily what tools/prompts/resources it has, that's what the MCP spec if for 😉)

cc: @ochafik @dsp-ant

[joan-anthropic]

@joeyorlando I think the schema link is broken - any chance you can re-share?

[joeyorlando]

@joan-anthropic whoops, see this link

[domdomegg]

@joeyorlando I don't know if you've seen the MCP registry project which includes a server.json standard, which I think is trying to set a spec one-level higher than DXT. And it's also building in support for extensions etc. so Archestra could add stuff like your trust score.

I think server.json differs from DXT in that DXT is a manifest for some bundle, which includes details on how to run that bundle. Whereas server.json is a reference to different bundles, with minimal info to get those bundles and run them.

[joeyorlando]

thanks for sharing that @domdomegg! 🙌 will definitely take a look

[joan-anthropic]

Closing this - we've resolved how we think about DXT / MCPB in the MCP registry here, and will figure out broader implications of folding MCPB into MCP spec separately