Thanks, Jinsong. These suggestions are very helpful. I’d like to provide some additional context about the AIP.
Jinsong Zhou <[email protected]> 于2026年7月17日周五 14:40写道： > Hi, > > Thanks for the well-structured proposal. The motivation is clear — wrapping > AMS REST APIs behind semantic, read-only MCP tools significantly lowers the > integration barrier for AI agents while maintaining a strong security > posture. The scope is appropriately restrained, and the authentication > model (particularly the request-scoped amoro mode preventing credential > fallback) is well designed. +1 from me. > > Two suggestions for consideration: > 1. AMS version compatibility and runtime version check > The proposal states it targets the 0.9 development branch, but does not > specify a minimum supported AMS version or a backward-compatibility policy. > Since the MCP server communicates with AMS purely through REST APIs, it > would be valuable to: > ⦁Declare the minimum compatible AMS version explicitly. > ⦁Implement a runtime version check (e.g., during the readiness probe or on > first request) that warns or fails fast when connecting to an unsupported > AMS version. > ⦁Clarify whether the MCP server intends to maintain backward compatibility > with older AMS releases in future versions, or whether it will track the > latest AMS release only. > This is especially important because the MCP server is deployed > independently from AMS, and version skew between the two is expected in > practice. > > 2. Future diagnostic tools > The initial toolset covers the core navigation and inspection flow well. A > few additional diagnostic tools would be valuable as follow-up additions > (not necessarily in the first release): > ⦁Cross-catalog table search: a search_tables tool that accepts > keywords and searches across catalogs and databases, enabling agents to > locate tables without knowing the full catalog→database→table hierarchy in > advance. > ⦁Table health summary: a tool exposing stale snapshots, partition > distribution anomalies, or optimization lag — common operational > diagnostics that align naturally with the read-only, diagnostic-oriented > scope. > These can be introduced incrementally as the MCP surface matures and usage > patterns from real agents become clearer. > > Overall, great proposal — looking forward to seeing this move forward. > > Best, > Jinsong > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 10:59 AM Xavier Bai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi devs, > > > > I would like to start a discussion about AIP-6: Introduce an MCP Server > for > > Apache Amoro [1]. > > > > Today, MCP clients and AI agents that inspect Amoro must understand the > AMS > > REST route hierarchy, authentication and request-signing rules, > pagination > > conventions, and response structures. AIP-6 proposes an official > > standalone, read-only MCP Server backed by the existing AMS REST GET > APIs. > > > > The initial scope contains 11 tools: > > > > - list_catalogs > > - list_databases > > - list_tables > > - get_table_details > > - list_table_snapshots > > - list_optimizing_processes > > - list_optimizing_tasks > > - list_optimizers > > - list_optimizing_tables > > - list_resource_groups > > - check_ams_connectivity > > > > Snapshot access is bounded, paginated, projected, and redacted. > File-level > > queries, operation history, generic REST proxying, and all write actions > > are out of scope. > > > > The main security boundaries are: > > > > - an explicit GET-only action allowlist; > > - strict input validation and bounded responses; > > - projection and redaction of sensitive fields; > > - no arbitrary URLs, HTTP methods, or raw AMS response passthrough. > > > > The proposal uses an independently deployable Python/FastMCP service and > is > > based on the AMS REST interfaces available on the current master branch. > > > > I would especially appreciate community feedback on: > > > > - whether the server should live in the Amoro monorepo; > > - the initial public tool contract; > > - the authentication model; > > - release expectations. > > > > The full proposal is available on the wiki [1], and the tracking issue is > > [2]. > > > > [1] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/AMORO/pages/440304643/AIP-6+Introduce+an+MCP+Server+for+Apache+Amoro > > [2] https://github.com/apache/amoro/issues/4266 > > > > Best regards, > > Xavier Bai > > >
