contract-first-mcp
# contract-first-mcp
A reference MCP server that treats tool schemas as **data contracts** — versioned,
tested for backward compatibility in CI, and hash-pinned against rug pulls.
Built for the MCP `2026-07-28` era: stateless core, explicit handles instead of
protocol sessions, and a formal deprecation discipline borrowed from
event-driven-architecture schema governance.
## Why
MCP servers today evolve their tools the way early Kafka producers evolved their
events: silently. A tool renames a field, a client's prompt cache goes stale, an
agent starts failing mid-plan — and there is no registry, no compat check, no
changelog. This repo shows the minimum viable governance layer:
| Discipline | Where |
|---|---|
| Contract-as-repository: one JSON Schema file per tool version | `contracts/<tool>/vN.json` |
| Additive-only evolution, enforced — including the tightenings that remove nothing and still break clients | `registry.check_backward_compatible`, `tests/` |
| Rug-pull detection: canonical SHA-256 of every contract, pinned | `pinned_tools.lock.json`, `list_contracts` tool |
| Stateless state: HMAC-signed handles the model threads between tools | `create_workspace_handle` / `verify_workspace_handle` |
| Fail-fast boot: server refuses to start if a version chain breaks compatibility | `server.main()` |
| Human-readable evolution history | `TOOL_CHANGELOG.md` |
## Run
```bash
pip install "mcp>=2.0" jsonschema
python -m contract_first_mcp.server # stdio
```
Claude Desktop / any MCP client config:
```json
{ "mcpServers": { "contract-first": {
"command": "python", "args": ["-m", "contract_first_mcp.server"],
"env": { "PYTHONPATH": "src", "HANDLE_KEY": "<inject-from-secret-manager>" } } } }
```
## What "additive-only" actually means here
The obvious rules — no removals, no type changes, no new required fields, no
enum removals — miss a whole family of breaking changes, because they look for
things that disappear. Lowering `maximum` from 12 to 6 removes nothing, renames
nothing, and rejects a payload that worked yesterday. So the checker also fails
a version that:
* raises a lower bound or lowers an upper bound (`minimum`, `maxLength`,
`maxItems`, and the rest), **including introducing a bound where there was
none** — unbounded is the loosest bound there is;
* adds or changes `pattern` or `multipleOf`;
* introduces an `enum` on a field that was previously open;
* closes `additionalProperties`;
* narrows a type (widening `string` to `["string", "number"]` stays legal);
* does any of the above inside a nested object or an array's items.
The asymmetry is the whole rule: dropping a constraint is always safe, adding
one never is. Each case above has a test that first proves the payload really
stops validating, then demands the checker catch it — because a compatibility
checker nobody adversarially tested is a comment, not a gate.
## Evolving a tool
1. Copy `contracts/<tool>/vN.json` to `v(N+1).json` and make **additive** changes only
(new optional fields, new enum values).
2. `pytest` — the compat chain test tells you immediately if the change is breaking.
3. Regenerate the lockfile:
```bash
python -c "import sys; sys.path.insert(0,'src'); from contract_first_mcp import registry; \
import json,pathlib; pathlib.Path('pinned_tools.lock.json').write_text(\
json.dumps(registry.build_lock(registry.load_contracts()), indent=2)+'\n')"
```
4. Record the change in `TOOL_CHANGELOG.md`.
5. Breaking change needed? Don't mutate — publish a **new tool name**
(`convert_units_v2` as a separate tool), deprecate the old one in its
description, and remove it no earlier than the spec's own bar: 12 months.
## Security posture
See [SECURITY.md](SECURITY.md). Short version: every input is validated against
its schema before touching logic, handles are signed and verifiable, contract
hashes are auditable by the client, and nothing in a tool result should ever be
treated as instructions.
## License
MIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: contract introspection, unit conversion, handle creation, and handle verification. Even the two handle tools are complementary rather than overlapping, with create vs verify being unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: list_contracts, convert_units, create_workspace_handle, verify_workspace_handle. This makes the set predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a focused server: one meta/introspection tool, one utility tool, and a small handle lifecycle pair. No tool feels redundant or out of place.
The main gap is that workspace handles can be created and verified but not explicitly revoked or expired. For the stated contract-first scope, this is a minor workaround rather than a critical missing capability.