Contributing to the Go MCP SDK

Thank you for your interest in contributing! The Go SDK needs active contributions to keep up with changes in the MCP spec, fix bugs, and accommodate new and emerging use-cases. We welcome all forms of contribution, from filing and reviewing issues, to contributing fixes, to proposing and implementing new features.

As described in the design document, it is important for the MCP SDK to remain idiomatic, future-proof, and extensible. The process described here is intended to ensure that the SDK evolves safely and transparently, while adhering to these goals.

Development setup

This module can be built and tested using the standard Go toolchain. Run go test ./... to run all its tests.

To test changes to this module against another module that uses the SDK, we recommend using a go.work file to define a multi-module workspace. For example, if your directory contains a project directory containing your project, and a go-sdk directory containing the SDK, run:

go work init ./project ./go-sdk

Filing issues

This project uses the GitHub issue tracker for issues. The process for filing bugs and proposals is described below.

TODO(rfindley): describe a process for asking general questions in the public MCP discord server.

Bugs

Please report bugs. If the SDK is not working as you expected, it is likely due to a bug or inadequate documentation, and reporting an issue will help us address this shortcoming.

When reporting a bug, make sure to answer these five questions:

What did you do?
What did you see?
What did you expect to see?
What version of the Go MCP SDK are you using?
What version of Go are you using (go version)?

Proposals

A proposal is an issue that proposes a new API for the SDK, or a change to the signature or behavior of an existing API. Proposals should be labeled with the 'proposal' label, and require an explicit approval from a maintainer before being accepted (indicated by the 'proposal-accepted' label). Proposals must remain open for at least a week to allow discussion before being accepted or declined by a maintainer.

Proposals that are straightforward and uncontroversial may be approved based on discussion on the issue tracker or in a GitHub Discussion. However, proposals that are deemed to be sufficiently unclear or complicated may be deferred to a regular Working Group meeting (see 'Governance' below).

This process is similar to the Go proposal process, but is necessarily lighter weight to accommodate the greater rate of change expected for the SDK.

Design discussion

For open ended design discussion (anything that doesn't fall into the issue categories above), use GitHub Discussions. Ideally, each discussion should be focused on one aspect of the design. For example: Tool Binding and Session APIs would be two separate discussions. When discussions reach a consensus, they should be promoted into proposals.

Contributing code

The project uses GitHub pull requests (PRs) to review changes.

Any significant change should be associated with a GitHub issue. Issues that are deemed to be good opportunities for contribution are be labeled 'Help Wanted'. If you want to work on such an issue, please first comment on the issue to say that you're interested in contributing. For issues not labeled 'Help Wanted', it is recommended that you ask (and wait for confirmation) on the issue before contributing, to avoid duplication of effort or wasted work. For nontrivial changes that don't relate to an existing issue, please file an issue first.

Changes should be high quality and well tested, and should generally follow the Google Go style guide. Commit messages should follow the format used by the Go project.

Unless otherwise noted, the Go source files are distributed under the MIT-style license found in the LICENSE file. All Go files in the SDK should have a copyright header following the format below:

// Copyright 2025 The Go MCP SDK Authors. All rights reserved.
// Use of this source code is governed by an MIT-style
// license that can be found in the LICENSE file.

Updating the README

The top-level README.md file is generated from internal/readme/README.src.md and should not be edited directly. To update the README:

Make your changes to internal/readme/README.src.md
Run make in the internal/readme/ directory to regenerate README.md
Commit both files together

The CI system will automatically check that the README is up-to-date by running make and verifying no changes result. If you see a CI failure about the README being out of sync, follow the steps above to regenerate it.

Code of conduct

This project follows the Go Community Code of Conduct. If you encounter a conduct-related issue, please mail conduct@golang.org.

Governance

Initially, the Go SDK repository will be administered by the Go team and Anthropic, and they will be the approvers (the set of people able to merge PRs to the SDK), also referred to as the 'Working Group'. The policies here are also intended to satisfy necessary constraints of the Go team's participation in the project. This may change in the future: see 'Ongoing Evaluation' below.

Working Group meetings

On a regular basis, the Working Group will host a virtual meeting to discuss outstanding proposals and other changes to the SDK. These meetings and their agendas will be announced in advance, and open to all. The meetings will be recorded, and recordings and meeting notes will be made available afterward. (TODO: decide on a mechanism for tracking these meetings--likely a GitHub issue.)

This process is similar to the Go Tools call, though it is expected that meetings will at least initially occur on a more frequent basis.

Discord

Discord (either the public or private Anthropic discord servers) should only be used for logistical coordination or answering questions. For transparency and durability, design discussion and decisions should occur in GitHub issues, GitHub discussions, or public steering meetings.

Antitrust considerations

It is important that the SDK avoids bias toward specific integration paths or providers. The antitrust policy below details precise terms that should be adhered to in order to ensure that the evolution and governance of the SDK remain procompetitive.

Antitrust policy

Note: all changes to the policy in this section must be approved by legal counsel.

The Go+Anthropic MCP SDK Working Group (the “Working Group”) is established to guide and review technical contributions to an open-source Go software development kit (“SDK”) for the Model Context Protocol (“MCP”). The Working Group and its members are committed to operating for procompetitive purposes that accelerate AI development and benefit businesses and consumers. This collaboration is focused on technical and infrastructure objectives – namely, developing and maintaining a neutral, open-source, and MIT-licensed library. Google and Anthropic, as well as other stakeholders, participate with the understanding that the Working Group’s sole purpose is to improve interoperability and innovation in the MCP ecosystem.

Antitrust law recognizes that when competitors collaborate for valid reasons (e.g., joint R&D or standard-setting), such collaborations can be procompetitive. This Antitrust Compliance Policy (the “Policy”) therefore outlines guidelines and safeguards to ensure the collaboration remains focused on its technical mission.

The Policy applies to all Working Group activities and communications, including official meetings, subcommittee discussions, emails, shared documents, and any other interactions under the Working Group’s auspices (e.g., group chats, version control systems). It applies to all participants from Google, Anthropic, and any other member organizations or independent contributors involved in the Working Group. Each participating entity should ensure its representatives understand and uphold these rules. By participating, members agree to follow the Policy in both letter and spirit.

Governance Procedures and Principles

Participant Guidelines. Participants should generally be limited to individuals in technical roles who are directly involved in the MCP SDK project. These participants should not be key decision-makers in their company’s AI commercial strategy, sales, marketing, pricing, or other competitively or strategically sensitive business planning.
Agenda Preparation. A written agenda should be circulated before each Working Group meeting. Agenda items should focus on the SDK’s technical development, maintenance, or documentation. Where appropriate, counsel should review the agenda prior to circulation to ensure compliance with the Policy.
Policy Reminder at Start. Meetings should begin with a brief antitrust compliance reminder with reference to the Policy.
Minutes. Meetings will be minuted by a designated participant, and neutrally record attendees, roles, topics discussed, action items, and outcomes. Draft minutes will be circulated to all participants.
Documentation and Transparency. Working Group outputs are intended for public release. Significant design decisions and discussion outcomes should be documented publicly. If a topic cannot be safely disclosed publicly, it likely does not belong in this forum.
Independence of Decision-Making. All participants and their companies retain complete independence in their own business decisions and competitive strategies outside of the MCP SDK project. Nothing in this collaboration restricts or influences how each company operates its commercial business.

Information Exchange Guidelines

Appropriate Topics. Working Group members are anticipated to remain within the project’s technical scope. In general, discussions should focus on improving the Go SDK for MCP in a transparent, collaborative, and non-exclusive manner. The following topics are appropriate and expected:

Software Design and Architecture: Implementation of MCP features in Go, API design, code structure, testing frameworks, performance considerations, compatibility issues, and security concerns.
Technical Contributions and Bug Fixes: Review of code contributions, debugging problems, and handling feature requests.
Documentation and Open-Source Logistics: Discussions of project documentation, changelogs, versioning strategy, and managing contributions.
Standards and Interoperability: Ensuring SDK compliance with MCP or other open technical standards. Any standardization effort should be open, voluntary, and tailored to promote interoperability.
Public Information: Any public information relevant to the Working Group’s technical work (e.g., published research, open-source code from outside projects, publicly documented API specs).

Inappropriate Topics. To ensure compliance with antitrust law and maintain the open character of the collaboration, the following subjects should not be discussed in Working Group meetings, side conversations, or related communications:

Pricing and Commercial Terms: Do not discuss prices, pricing strategy, discounting, or future pricing plans for Claude, Gemini, or any other AI product or service provided by Working Group members.
Sales or Output: Avoid sharing sales volumes, revenue, customer counts, market shares, production plans, or any business performance metrics.
Product Roadmaps (beyond SDK): Do not disclose internal plans for AI model development, feature rollouts, or future commercialization strategies.
Customers or Markets: No discussions of which customers, industries, or geographies the parties will pursue or avoid.
Customer or Supplier Details: Do not share specifics of contracts, negotiations, or relationships with commercial partners.
Non-SDK Proprietary Tech: Keep discussions focused on the open SDK. Sharing of information should be limited to what is needed to achieve the Working Group’s goals. Each party’s internal model architectures, fine-tuning approaches, or training methods unrelated to the project should not be disclosed.
HR or Labor Matters: No discussions about wages, hiring plans, or policies toward employees.

Enforcement and Support

Shared Responsibility. All Working Group participants share responsibility for upholding the Policy. While legal counsel can provide support, day-to-day compliance is a function of culture and practice.
Designated Legal Contacts. Each participating entity should designate a legal point of contact responsible for reviewing meeting materials (e.g., agendas, minutes) and fielding questions about compliance. These contacts should be included in the Working Group distribution list for all official materials and should be consulted in advance of any meetings where sensitive topics may arise.
Final Note. The Policy is not meant to chill legitimate technical collaboration. It is meant to ensure that the Working Group can focus on its mission without creating unnecessary legal risk or attracting regulator scrutiny. Participants who follow the Policy and avoid Inappropriate Topics will remain squarely within the procompetitive zone.

Ongoing evaluation

On an ongoing basis, the administrators of the SDK will evaluate whether it is keeping pace with changes to the MCP spec and meeting its goals of openness and transparency. If it is not meeting these goals, either because it exceeds the bandwidth of its current Working Group, or because the processes here are inadequate, these processes will be re-evaluated by the Working Group. At this time, the Working Group set may be expanded to include additional community members, based on their history of strong contribution.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!