Skip to content

feat: ClientGroup for managing multiple MCP server connections #1

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: session_group_1_sample
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

amirh
Copy link
Owner

@amirh amirh commented May 13, 2025

Motivation and Context

This stack of changes makes it easier to work with multiple MCP servers from a single client.
This has also been requested in modelcontextprotocol#6

To make the review easier with smaller focused PRs I'm sending a stack or PRs with incremental implementation steps.

This PR is adding the initial ClientGroup class for managing a group of Clients.

Currently ClientGroup allows for convenient listing and invocations of tools from across multiple clients, and convenience for closing all clients.

Still missing:

  • Proper way for handling tool name conflicts.
  • Support for prompts and resources (I want to get the API and semantics around tools approved first).

PR Stack

Note that since I'm sending the PRs from a fork, only the PR at the bottom of the stack is sent to modelcontextprotocol/typescript-sdk. As PRs land I'll update the target repository for the new base PR.

How Has This Been Tested?

  • I added unit tests and they are passing.
  • I ran: npm run build && node dist/esm/examples/client/clientGroupSample.js

Breaking Changes

No breaking changes.

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
  • I have added appropriate error handling
  • I have added or updated documentation as needed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant