Description:
There is a theoretical inconsistency in how the relationship between MCP Servers and API Proxies is described.
Location :
https://wso2.com/bijira/docs/mcp-servers/design-mcp-servers/#mcp-servers-for-existing-api-proxies
The Conflict:
The text states: "the MCP Server is associated with the API Proxy, their lifecycles are not tightly coupled."
The very next sentence states: "unpublishing or undeploying the API Proxy can disrupt the MCP Server created using it."
Technical Detail:
In systems architecture, if the functional availability of Component A (MCP Server) is dependent on the deployment state of Component B (API Proxy), they are tightly coupled. Describing them as "not tightly coupled" is technically misleading and could lead to accidental production outages during API maintenance.
Suggested Fix:
Clarify the architectural dependency. If the MCP Server acts as a proxy/wrapper for the API, it should be described as dependent or tightly coupled to the underlying API Proxy's lifecycle.
Description:
There is a theoretical inconsistency in how the relationship between MCP Servers and API Proxies is described.
Location :
https://wso2.com/bijira/docs/mcp-servers/design-mcp-servers/#mcp-servers-for-existing-api-proxies
The Conflict:
The text states: "the MCP Server is associated with the API Proxy, their lifecycles are not tightly coupled."
The very next sentence states: "unpublishing or undeploying the API Proxy can disrupt the MCP Server created using it."
Technical Detail:
In systems architecture, if the functional availability of Component A (MCP Server) is dependent on the deployment state of Component B (API Proxy), they are tightly coupled. Describing them as "not tightly coupled" is technically misleading and could lead to accidental production outages during API maintenance.
Suggested Fix:
Clarify the architectural dependency. If the MCP Server acts as a proxy/wrapper for the API, it should be described as dependent or tightly coupled to the underlying API Proxy's lifecycle.