Skip to content

MCP_SESSION.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
118 lines (92 loc) · 5.05 KB

MCP_SESSION.md

File metadata and controls

118 lines (92 loc) · 5.05 KB
Raw

MCP session receipts

Every block below is raw output from the deployed product. Nothing here is illustrative or hand-written: the JSON files referenced are committed next to this page in assets/, and the same calls can be repeated by anyone.

Two endpoints exist:

Endpoint Auth Purpose
https://queueproof.vercel.app/mcp Bearer token or OAuth Full workspace contract
https://queueproof.vercel.app/mcp/demo None Read-only reviewer endpoint, single search tool

1. The protected endpoint refuses anonymous callers

$ curl -si -X POST https://queueproof.vercel.app/mcp \
    -H 'content-type: application/json' \
    -d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"tools/list"}' | head -3
HTTP/1.1 401
www-authenticate: Bearer resource_metadata="https://queueproof.vercel.app/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp", scope="openid profile email", error="invalid_token"

The challenge follows RFC 9728, so a compliant client can discover the resource metadata, the authorization server, the scopes, and the dynamic registration endpoint without being told them out of band.

2. Handshake on the reviewer endpoint

$ curl -s -X POST https://queueproof.vercel.app/mcp/demo \
    -H 'content-type: application/json' -H 'accept: application/json, text/event-stream' \
    -d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"initialize","params":{"protocolVersion":"2025-06-18","capabilities":{},"clientInfo":{"name":"curl","version":"1.0"}}}'

Negotiated protocol 2025-06-18; server identifies itself as queueproof 0.2.0. tools/list returns one tool, queueproof_search, with a complete input schema. resources/list returns queueproof://demo/guide. No fictional tools, prompts, or change-diff resources are advertised.

3. A hard question, answered with an explicit gap

This is the interesting case, because the honest answer is not a complete one. The request asks for four separate things at once and forces the thinking lane:

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "name": "queueproof_search",
    "arguments": {
      "query": "Reconstruct the AuthShield outage end to end: who escalated it, what engineering committed to, whether the fix is merged, and name any source disagreement or missing evidence.",
      "mode": "thinking"
    }
  }
}

Full response: assets/mcp-complex-call.json (JSON-RPC envelope) and assets/mcp-complex-result.json (decoded payload).

What came back:

Field Value
plan.category conflict_analysis
plan.queryBy hybrid, with graph context enabled
mode thinking
validation.status partial
claims / cited claims 2 / 2
evidence 3 records
providerCoverage linear, github, slack
contradictions 1, preserved rather than resolved
missingInformation ["Insufficient evidence for the requested engineering commitment."]
latencyMs 5528
callCount / estimatedCostUnits 1 / 3
failedScopeCount 0

The answer text is two sentences, and both carry citation markers:

The AuthShield authentication fix for the Northwind outage (INC-2031) was merged. [1] Northwind have escalated the AuthShield authentication outage (INC-2031). [2]

The fourth part of the question — what engineering committed to — is not answered. The tool reports it as missing information instead of inventing a commitment, and the response is marked partial rather than grounded because of it. The preserved contradiction is a date disagreement inside the Linear records:

The cited records contain different dates: linear says 29 July 2026; linear says 7 August 2026.

Each citation resolves to a stored evidence record with provider, source ID, title, and timestamp, for example 772fc4ca6eab32434a9df0b8626810c498ed652518d9228a756078ea4abf7f61:chunk:1 on linear.

4. Why this is the receipt worth reading

A retrieval demo is easy to make look good by asking a question the corpus answers cleanly. This one deliberately asks for more than the evidence supports. The system answers what it can prove, cites all of it, names the part it cannot prove, and keeps a source disagreement visible instead of picking a winner. That behaviour is the product.

Reproduce it

curl -s -X POST https://queueproof.vercel.app/mcp/demo \
  -H 'content-type: application/json' \
  -H 'accept: application/json, text/event-stream' \
  -d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"tools/call","params":{"name":"queueproof_search","arguments":{"query":"Reconstruct the AuthShield outage end to end: who escalated it, what engineering committed to, whether the fix is merged, and name any source disagreement or missing evidence.","mode":"thinking"}}}'

The response is a Server-Sent Events stream; the payload is on the data: line.

Client setup guides: Remote MCP · Claude workflow · Codex workflow · ChatGPT workflow