modelcontextprotocol / modelcontextprotocol/php-sdk

Proposal: Extract Discovery module from core SDK for better modularity

Open
#44 4 comments 1 reaction 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

needs confirmation
Dominant language
PHP
Stars
1.6k
Forks
173
Avg merge
2d 49m
Merged PRs (30d)
23

Description

Hey team,

I can see a lot of thought went into making the developer experience smooth with the Discovery module. The automatic scanning and registration is definitely a nice convenience feature.

I was reviewing the SDK architecture and noticed that the Discovery functionality is currently bundled directly into the core SDK package. While this makes getting started really easy, I'm wondering if we might want to consider a different approach for the long-term health of the project.

Here's what I'm thinking about:

Maintenance and Release Complexity

The Discovery module brings in some pretty heavy dependencies like symfony/finder and phpdocumentor/reflection-docblock, plus it includes custom tokenization logic. This means the SDK's release cycle could get tangled up with Discovery-related updates.

Framework Integration Challenges

I've been looking at how this would integrate with frameworks like Spiral, Laravel, and Symfony, and they already have really mature discovery systems with optimized caching and pre-compilation. It seems like we might be asking framework developers to choose between using their battle-tested discovery systems or staying compatible with our SDK approach.

Architectural Separation

What do you think about splitting this into separate concerns? Something like:

  • Keep the SDK focused on the core MCP protocol implementation (message handling, JSON-RPC transport, tool schemas)
  • Move Discovery into either a separate mcp/discovery package or framework-specific integrations
  • Let applications choose the discovery approach that fits their architecture

This way:

  • The core SDK stays lightweight with minimal dependencies
  • Framework integrations can use their native discovery systems
  • Standalone apps can still use convenient auto-discovery if they want
  • We can evolve Discovery independently from protocol updates

Specific Benefits

For microservices that just need manual tool registration, they wouldn't carry the file scanning dependencies. Framework developers could contribute optimized integrations for their specific ecosystems. And SDK maintenance could focus on what it does best - implementing the MCP protocol cleanly.

I might be missing some context about the design decisions here, so I'd love to hear your thoughts! Is there a specific reason Discovery needs to be in the core SDK, or would a more modular approach work better?

Happy to discuss this further or help with any refactoring if the team thinks this direction makes sense.

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

No specific files or tests are named. Start by reviewing the core SDK's Discovery module, including its symfony/finder, phpdocumentor/reflection-docblock, and custom tokenization dependencies, then compare the proposed mcp/discovery package boundary with integrations for Spiral, Laravel, and Symfony. Done means the team has agreed on an extraction design and its framework integration boundaries.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
php
Domain
backend-api-design
Issue type
Refactor
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Quiet
Clarity
Needs clarification
Newbie friendliness
25/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.