zmuxuny commented on issue #4307: URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-dashboard/issues/4307#issuecomment-5953882701
Following up on the platform-level exemption agreed in #4307/#4308: could we make its operator-facing access contract explicit alongside the README's description of an "instance-scoped" MCP surface? At rocketmq-studio commit 6a68042, the catalog deliberately distinguishes instance-addressed tools from platform-level read-only tools. For an MCP client configured with one instance's credentials, which policy should the documentation promise? 1. Strict instance-bound discovery: returned operational metadata is limited to the authenticated instance; platform-wide reads require separately authorized access. 2. Documented global-metadata discovery exception: instance-addressed tools remain bound to the authenticated instance, while the explicitly listed platform-level read-only tools retain their declared deployment-wide or physical-cluster scope. The resolution here and #4855 indicate option 2 is the current design. Is that the intended supported contract? If so, could the permissions documentation list the exceptions and explain that instance binding, capability eligibility, and returned-data scope are separate concepts, with conformance tests covering the documented behavior? Any move toward option 1 would be a separate design change. This question is about documenting and preserving the agreed contract, rather than reopening the completed implementation or duplicating #4556's capability-resolution discussion. AI assistance was used to cross-check the public design history. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
