Skip to content

Conformance Tests for SEP-2322 MRTR#188

Open
CaitieM20 wants to merge 11 commits intomodelcontextprotocol:mainfrom
CaitieM20:mrtr-tests
Open

Conformance Tests for SEP-2322 MRTR#188
CaitieM20 wants to merge 11 commits intomodelcontextprotocol:mainfrom
CaitieM20:mrtr-tests

Conversation

@CaitieM20
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Draft Conformance tests for the SEP-2322: Multi Round-Trip Requests

Also added code to client-helper.ts to make rawMCP Requests (i.e. basic json requests) this will be generally useful for draft features that may not have reference implementations yet.

Motivation and Context

See SEP

How Has This Been Tested?

Conformance Tests & Reference Implementation in progress work

Breaking Changes

yes see SEP

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation update

Checklist

  • I have read the MCP Documentation
  • My code follows the repository's style guidelines
  • New and existing tests pass locally - existing tests pass draft tests do not since we don't have an implementation yet
  • I have added appropriate error handling
  • I have added or updated documentation as needed

Additional context

@pkg-pr-new
Copy link
Copy Markdown

pkg-pr-new Bot commented Mar 17, 2026

Open in StackBlitz

npx https://pkg.pr.new/@modelcontextprotocol/conformance@188

commit: a8fa736

@panyam
Copy link
Copy Markdown

panyam commented May 6, 2026

Hello - saw this PR while looking at the 2322 finalizing threads. I've been porting our local MRTR + Tasks Extension scenarios into a fork of the official suite at panyam/mcpconformance:feat/tasks-mrtr-extension - looks like our ephemeral-flow scenarios cover similar ground to your A1-A7 set, and we've also built out the wider Tasks Extension perimeter (lifecycle, capability negotiation, dispatch, request-state, headers, notifications) which this PR doesn't span.

The bridge scenario (Tasks + MRTR partial fulfillment) is narrow on our side - 3 checks - vs your incomplete-result-tasks.ts which goes deeper. Looks like the two are mostly complementary.

If you're planning to revive this PR after the SEP finalizes, happy to help refresh wire format and pair on the bridge surface. Otherwise I can open a separate PR for the wider Tasks Extension scope and defer the ephemeral-flow / bridge depth to whatever lands here. Or some merged form, whatever's easiest for you. Just wanted to make sure I wasnt undoing anything 🙏

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants