fix: address 2025-11-25 conformance audit findings#951
Merged
Conversation
alexhancock
approved these changes
Jul 3, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation and Context
A conformance audit of rmcp against the MCP 2025-11-25 spec (schema cross-check plus the official conformance suite v0.1.16) surfaced four small, independent fixes:
OperationProcessorinterpretedttlas seconds and applied it viaDuration::from_secs, but the spec definesttlin milliseconds — a spec-conformantttl: 60000became a ~16.7h deadline.ResourceContents::text()/ContentBlock::embedded_textdefaultedmimeTypeto"text", which is not a valid MIME type. Nowtext/plain.resourceparameter, which the spec requires on all token requests. Authorization and code-exchange requests already included it.name/stylewhile the official runner sendsarg1/arg2, makingprompts-get-with-argsthe only failing server scenario.Also adds a CI workflow that runs the official server conformance suite on PRs (related: #684).
How Has This Been Tested?
Official conformance suite v0.1.16 against the in-tree server: 40/40 (was 39/40).
Breaking Changes
None
Types of changes
Checklist