modelcontextprotocol / modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk
Mcp-Name accepts an orphan header, while Mcp-Param-* rejects it as a routing spoof
まだ誰も着手していません。
- 主要言語
- Python
- スター
- 24.3k
- フォーク
- 4k
- 平均マージ
- 1日 1時間
- マージ済み PR(30日)
- 31
説明
What
validate_mcp_param_headers rejects an orphan Mcp-Param-* header, one present when the body argument is absent or null. classify_inbound_request accepts an orphan Mcp-Name header.
The Mcp-Param-* posture is deliberate and documented, in tests/shared/test_inbound.py:
"""SDK-defined posture on a spec gap: an orphan header is the routing-spoof case; go rejects too, ts skips."""
The Mcp-Name path has no equivalent branch. src/mcp/shared/inbound.py, line 447 on main:
body_value = cast("Mapping[str, Any]", body["params"]).get(name_key)
if body_value is not None and decode_header_value(headers.get(MCP_NAME_HEADER)) != body_value:
When body_value is None the whole check is skipped, including the case where a header claims a name.
Reproducer
from mcp.shared.inbound import (
MCP_METHOD_HEADER, MCP_NAME_HEADER, MCP_PROTOCOL_VERSION_HEADER,
InboundModernRoute, classify_inbound_request,
)
V = "2026-07-28"
body = {"jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "tools/call", "params": {
"arguments": {},
"_meta": {"io.modelcontextprotocol/protocolVersion": V,
"io.modelcontextprotocol/clientCapabilities": {}}}}
result = classify_inbound_request(body, headers={
MCP_PROTOCOL_VERSION_HEADER: V,
MCP_METHOD_HEADER: "tools/call",
MCP_NAME_HEADER: "ping", # claims a tool the body never names
})
assert isinstance(result, InboundModernRoute) # passes today
Same shape for resources/read with uri.
Why this looks like an inconsistency rather than a decision
The existing Mcp-Name test covers a different case:
def test_header_rung_does_not_require_name_header_when_body_omits_the_named_param() -> None:
"""SDK-defined: ... the param's absence is INVALID_PARAMS later, not HEADER_MISMATCH here."""
matching_headers omits Mcp-Name when the body lacks the param, so this pins "body omits the param and no header is sent". That rationale reads correctly for that case: nobody asserted a name, so the defect is the missing param and INVALID_PARAMS is the right answer.
It does not obviously extend to a client that did assert one. There the header and body disagree, which is the condition the routing-spoof posture exists for, and Mcp-Name is the header an intermediary is most likely to route on, since it names the tool or resource rather than a secondary parameter.
To be clear about impact: the malformed request fails INVALID_PARAMS downstream either way, so nothing executes. The concrete cost is an intermediary routing or rate-limiting on a name the body never contained.
Ask
Is the Mcp-Param-* posture intended to apply to Mcp-Name? If so the fix mirrors the sibling branch, rejecting when body_value is None and the header is present, with a test alongside test_validate_mcp_param_headers_rejects_orphan_header_for_absent_or_null_argument.
If the asymmetry is intentional, a note in that test's docstring saying so would prevent the next reader drawing the same conclusion I did.
Happy to open the PR either way once you say which you would prefer.
AI disclosure per AI_POLICY: I directed this investigation and reviewed the result. The research and drafting were done by Claude Code, which found this while probing SEP-2243 handling with adversarial tests, having implemented the same validation in a TypeScript resource server. 87 probes against encode_header_value and decode_header_value found no defects there, including non-canonical base64, invalid UTF-8 and sentinel-literal collisions, so this is the only finding. Verified against main rather than the released 2.0.0 wheel.
コントリビューションガイド
はじめの一歩
- issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
- 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
- リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
- issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。
調査の方向性
src/mcp/shared/inbound.py の 447 行目付近にある classify_inbound_request ブランチから始め、次に tests/shared/test_inbound.py を読みます。特に test_validate_mcp_param_headers_rejects_orphan_header_for_absent_or_null_argument と既存の Mcp-Name テストを確認してください。意図された方針を maintainers と確認してください。完了条件は、回帰テストと対応するバリデーションのいずれか、または意図的な非対称性を説明するテスト docstring のいずれかがあることです。
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
評価
- 技術スタック
- python
- 領域
- api, security
- issue の種類
- バグ
- 難易度
- 3/5
- 見積もり時間
- 1〜2日
- 活発さ
- 静か
- 明瞭さ
- おおむね明確
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 42/100