MCP server: One MCP server.

Multi PoC Beta Script

@nithishrMCP server · External

PoC Q5b: run a differently-named console script via a positional runtimeArgument.

v0.1.0Python
Freeno charge per call

Runs on your machine from its package; the steps are below.

What it does

  1. Reads
  2. Writes
  3. High impact

At most: moves money, runs code or commands, deletes data, or sends messages for you.

What it costs

Free

Odel charges nothing per call. The publisher may charge for its own service.

Runs locally over stdio

This server isn't hosted — your MCP client launches it from a package registry. Use one of the commands below, or drop the config into your client (e.g. Claude Desktop).

PyPImcp-multi-pocv0.1.0

Run

uvx mcp-multi-poc

MCP client config

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "multi-poc-beta-script": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "mcp-multi-poc"
      ]
    }
  }
}
README5 min read

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

#QuestionWhere it's tested
1Can two MCP registry entries point at the same PyPI package?Publish both server.alpha.json and server.beta.json
2Does registry ownership validation accept multiple mcp-name comments in one package README?The two HTML comments above
3Does 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
4Do clients run the subcommand form correctly from registry metadata (uvx mcp-multi-poc alpha)?Install both servers from a client (Claude Desktop / MCP Inspector)
5Is 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 runtimeArgument → uvx --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

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)

bash
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):

bash
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:
    bash
    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:
    bash
    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:)
    json
    {
      "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.

Similar modules