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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
StreamableHttp - Server transport with state management #553
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
StreamableHttp - Server transport with state management #553
Changes from 20 commits
2b95598
3d790f8
27bc01e
3c4cf10
bce74b3
2011579
2cebf08
6c9c320
ede8cde
2a3bed8
0456b1b
97ca48d
92d4287
aa9f6e5
46ec72d
9b096dc
bbe79c2
a0a9c5b
a5ac2e0
2e615f3
ff70bd6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's call this
mcp.server.http.streamable
, or something similar.streamableHttp
is not PEP 8 compliant.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[nit, also could be a follow up] Would be nice to use fastmcp here - i usually end up going:
But perhaps we should just make it easier to get to
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I was quite confused here, we have two folders for servers: fastmcp and servers. I was planning to add fastmcp exaple as a follow up.
fastmcp might also help with
related_request_id
clarity - it's hidden under log. Low level server does not have a place where we can nicely injectrelated_request_id
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We never check the name of the tool that is called. We should.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This feels awfully complex as a lowlevel API, particularly if every MCP Server using the lowlevel API would have to go and use something like this. I wonder if we can provide a more high-level abstraction for this, that makes it more managable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sure, we can make it happen, will add as a separate PR