Skip to main content
Glama
nithishr

mcp-multi-poc

by nithishr

mcp-multi-poc

PoC for serving multiple MCP servers from a single PyPI package, using subcommands for server selection and optional extras for on-demand dependencies. Stands in for the Couchbase MCP monorepo question (alpha = operational, beta = analytics, tabulate = the analytics SDK — chosen because it is outside fastmcp's transitive dependency tree; httpx and pyyaml are not, and silently defeat the extras guard).

What this PoC must answer

#

Question

Where it's tested

1

Can two MCP registry entries point at the same PyPI package?

Publish both server.alpha.json and server.beta.json

2

Does registry ownership validation accept multiple mcp-name comments in one package README?

The two HTML comments above

3

Does the registry schema/validator accept extras syntax in identifier (mcp-multi-poc[beta])?

server.beta.json — if rejected, fall back to plain identifier and record that extras can't be expressed

4

Do clients run the subcommand form correctly from registry metadata (uvx mcp-multi-poc alpha)?

Install both servers from a client (Claude Desktop / MCP Inspector)

5

Is there any schema-legal way to run a console script named differently than the package (mcp-multi-poc-beta)?

server.beta-script.json. 5a (failed): identifier = script name → 404, identifier must be a real PyPI package. 5b (current file): identifier = real package, script name smuggled as a positional runtimeArgumentuvx --from 'mcp-multi-poc[beta]' mcp-multi-poc-beta mcp-multi-poc; the appended identifier becomes a stray arg the server must ignore. If 5b also fails, fallback is a shim package per script

Related MCP server: MCP Server Deepdive

Findings so far (2026-07-31)

  • Q1 — multiple entries per PyPI package: YES. mcp-multi-poc-alpha published against the shared package.

  • Q2 — multiple mcp-name comments in one README: YES (alpha validated with three comments present).

  • Q3 — extras in identifier: NO, but expressible via runtimeArguments. Extras in the identifier fail the literal PyPI lookup — PyPI package 'mcp-multi-poc[beta]' not found (status: 404). Fallback works: mcp-multi-poc-beta published successfully with plain identifier: mcp-multi-poc + runtimeArguments: --from "mcp-multi-poc[beta]" (live in the registry, verified via the /v0/servers API).

  • Q5a — differently-named console script as identifier: NO (confirmed on publish). Same 404 mechanism ('mcp-multi-poc-beta' not found) — the registry validates the identifier as a real PyPI package before anything else.

  • Q5b — script name as positional runtimeArgument: YES, published. io.github.nithishr/mcp-multi-poc-beta-script is live (published 2026-07-31, after trimming description to the 100-char limit — the only validation hiccup). Locally, uvx --from 'mcp-multi-poc[beta]' mcp-multi-poc-beta mcp-multi-poc completes the MCP initialize handshake — the trailing identifier is silently ignored because main() never parses argv. Caveats: only safe when the entrypoint tolerates stray argv (click needs ignore_unknown_options + allow_extra_args or a dummy optional argument); depends on clients preserving runtimeArguments order — the least-exercised metadata path; registry UIs show the identifier as the runnable. For production script-per-server, prefer a shim package per script (identifier == script name, no runtimeArguments at all).

  • Registry validation limits discovered: description ≤ 100 chars; identifier must be a literal, existing PyPI package (extras rejected); runtimeArguments/packageArguments contents are NOT validated.

Local smoke test (before publishing anything)

cd mcp-registry-poc
uv venv && uv pip install -e .
mcp-multi-poc alpha          # starts alpha on stdio (Ctrl+C to exit)
mcp-multi-poc beta           # must FAIL with the friendly extras message
uv pip install -e ".[beta]"
mcp-multi-poc beta           # now starts
mcp-multi-poc                # bare command runs alpha (backward-compat check)
mcp-multi-poc-beta           # Option 1 script works locally once extra installed

uvx behavior (after publishing to PyPI):

uvx mcp-multi-poc alpha                  # base only
uvx "mcp-multi-poc[beta]" beta           # extras via uvx — key UX under test
uvx --from "mcp-multi-poc[beta]" mcp-multi-poc-beta   # Option 1 fallback form

Publish steps (manual, in order)

  1. If mcp-multi-poc is taken on PyPI, pick another name and rename consistently (pyproject name, [project.scripts], both server.json identifiers).

  2. Build and publish to real PyPI (registry validation fetches from pypi.org; TestPyPI will not work): uv build && uv publish.

  3. Install mcp-publisher and log in: mcp-publisher login github (interactive) — must match the io.github.<username> namespace.

  4. Publish the entries: mcp-publisher publish server.alpha.json, ... server.beta.json, and ... server.beta-script.json — the last one is expected to fail validation; record the exact error (if the CLI expects the file at ./server.json, copy each into place first).

  5. Verify via the registry API: curl "https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io/v0/servers?search=mcp-multi-poc"

  6. Configure both servers in a client from the registry metadata and call echo (alpha) and make_table (beta).

  7. Record results per question above, then deprecate/delete the PoC entries.

Q4 — testing the published entries from a client

Most clients don't install directly from the official registry yet, so Q4 splits in two: (a) does the spec-mandated command construction (uvx <runtimeArguments> <identifier> <packageArguments>) produce a working server, and (b) does a registry-consuming client reproduce that construction.

  1. Fetch what was actually published and check the packages block: curl "https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io/v0/servers?search=mcp-multi-poc"

  2. MCP Inspector — interactive tool calls against the hand-assembled command:

    npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uvx mcp-multi-poc alpha
    npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uvx --from "mcp-multi-poc[beta]" mcp-multi-poc beta
  3. Claude Code — same commands as stdio servers, then call echo / make_table:

    claude mcp add poc-alpha -- uvx mcp-multi-poc alpha
    claude mcp add poc-beta -- uvx --from "mcp-multi-poc[beta]" mcp-multi-poc beta

    (For Claude Desktop, the equivalent claude_desktop_config.json entries:)

    {
      "mcpServers": {
        "poc-alpha": { "command": "uvx", "args": ["mcp-multi-poc", "alpha"] },
        "poc-beta":  { "command": "uvx", "args": ["--from", "mcp-multi-poc[beta]", "mcp-multi-poc", "beta"] }
      }
    }
  4. Registry-native install (the real (b) test): VS Code's MCP server gallery is backed by the official registry — search for mcp-multi-poc there and install; this exercises whether a client assembles runtimeArguments + identifier + packageArguments on its own. Entries may lag or be curated before appearing.

Steps 2–3 only prove (a); only step 4 (or another registry-consuming client) proves (b), which is what the beta/beta-script entries actually depend on.

Available Tools

1 tool
echoA

Echo the input text back.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Echo the input text back' fully reveals the tool's behavior: it returns the provided text without side effects. For such a simple tool, this is complete and explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place by completely and efficiently conveying the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's trivial complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an existing output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does and what the parameter means, and it does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description identifies the sole parameter's role: 'text' is the input to be echoed. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds clear meaning beyond the raw type information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Echo the input text back' clearly states the action (echo), the target (input text), and the result (back). It is specific and unambiguous, fully conveying the tool's purpose without relying on the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There are no sibling tools or alternatives to compare against, and the tool's simplicity makes its usage self-evident. The description clearly implies when to use it (whenever you need the input returned as-is), though it does not explicitly state 'use when' or provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev0.1.0
    • First observedecho

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is immediately clear and distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

The tool name 'echo' is a simple, descriptive verb that clearly indicates its function. With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained.

Tool Count1/5

A single tool named 'echo' is extremely thin for an MCP server, especially one named 'multi-poc'. This is a textbook example of an inappropriate tool count for the apparent scope.

Completeness1/5

The server offers no meaningful domain coverage beyond a trivial echo function. There are no CRUD operations, no resources, and no other capabilities, making the surface severely incomplete.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    A Python-based server that helps users easily install and configure other MCP servers across different platforms.
    2
    3
    MIT
  • F
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Python-based MCP server implementation that can be easily installed via pip or directly from GitHub, providing a simple way to deploy and run MCP server functionality.
    1
    -
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides LocalServer and RemoteServer implementations for running MCP servers locally via stdio or remotely via HTTP/SSE, with simple and advanced deployment options.
    1
    MIT