I would love the text in the spec to include more of what you have written in the PR description, and that the recommendation is to use traceparent, tracestate and baggage parameters under _meta to propagate OpenTelemetry context information. The format of each of the values should be the same as the http headers in the corresponding w3c specs.

It could be labelled as "Optional: OpenTelemetry context".

I hope that SDKs decide to implement it where they have existing OTel ecosystems that they can leverage. MCP clients are not required to send it, and MCP servers that do not support OTel can safely ignore those parameters.

This may be too much for the index file, but they could be added to the typescript and documentation.

@samsp-msft, thanks for your thoughtful feedback! I’ve updated the "Basic" section to keep it neutral and avoid implying MCP defines OpenTelemetry (OTel) specifics:

- Params **MAY** include a `_meta` key with value type `[key: string]: unknown;`. This
  allows propagation of metadata from client to server. For example, OpenTelemetry SDKs
  [default](https://opentelemetry.io/docs/languages/sdk-configuration/general/#otel_propagators) to propagate W3C `traceparent`, `tracestate` and `baggage` fields.

Updated Rationale:

This keeps _meta flexible, recommending to use what OTel SDKs are configured. The nuance is me using "default" which helps relay who owns the decision. OTel supports alternatives (like Jaeger) or excluding baggage for privacy/overhead: we could get into a slippery slope saying too much here.

Specifically, we want to make room in otel for what's likely an inevitable OTEP for MCP. I say inevitable because the other discussion includes transport details (e.g. OTLP which is not propagation). This feels a lot like past discussions that led to specification clarifications including env variable propagation and how to handle messaging. In fact, there's already work in Otel for semantic conventions (thanks for participating in that). Ideally an engineer will be able to see the otel details coherently in one place (e.g. an OTEP).

Long story short, deferring OTel keeps MCP focused on protocol mechanics, not telemetry details. By adding an example, we hint of how to hand-over to otel for clarity on telemetry. Does this address your concern?

I took time to update the description with feedback in the comments and also relating to discussions by @ZengyiZhao here and @wdawson here. Hope we can land this soon!

@dsp-ant @jspahrsummers So, for anecdotal context. What drove me to the discussion leading to this and the PR itself was your podcast on latent space with @FanaHOVA and @swyxio

Was a knock-out episode, and since working in oss since 2008 this made me feel the best:

I want to caveat it slightly that on the Internet, it's very easy to be part of a discussion and having an opinion without then actually doing the work. And so I think there. We were. Both Jansen and I are very old school. Open source people that like it's it's marriage driven in the sense that if you have done work and if you if you showcase this with like practical examples and work in SDKs towards the ex extensions you want to make, you have a good chance that it gets in. If you're just there to have an opinion, you're very likely just being ignored

So, my goal with this change was to make the absolutely least change possible, with the highest rigor. Even if it is a no, all good. Thanks for inspiring me to give it a go. I love the do the work, then let's talk approach to change.

@samsp-msft, thanks for your thoughtful feedback! I’ve updated the "Basic" section to keep it neutral and avoid implying MCP defines OpenTelemetry (OTel) specifics:

- Params **MAY** include a `_meta` key with value type `[key: string]: unknown;`. This
  allows propagation of metadata from client to server. For example, OpenTelemetry SDKs
  [default](https://opentelemetry.io/docs/languages/sdk-configuration/general/#otel_propagators) to propagate W3C `traceparent`, `tracestate` and `baggage` fields.

LGTM

There is a balance between what needs to go into the base specification - providing the place to pass context - and having agreement amongst the SDK as to how they will use the extensibility mechanisms to implement telemetry propagation. The details of which key values pairs should be used and their values can probably be delegated to docs in the OTel space. It can probably go in the docs for the semantic conventions.

I am hoping that we can get common agreement amongst most MCP SDKs about how to incorporate telemetry so that they can interoperate nicely, and it doesn't need major retrofits later.

@samsp-msft thanks for the support. PS I raised a PR to csharp-sdk to change the carrier from request.params -> request.params._meta (and backfilled a test). I didn't see before that an impl was here, too, so wanted to own responsibility of change implied here, as well.

Earlier I mis-attributed request.params._meta[progressToken] to BeeAI ACP. It is not BeeAI specific. Rather it is in the specification already. So, we already document use of request.params._meta, just not generally yet.

I've revised the spec change to link to the progress spec, and also shored up the description accordingly.

@dsp-ant do you have any advice for us on how to progress this PR? I'm happy to revise it, but it seems stalled.

Right now, by naming convention (Request and JSONRPCRequest) any *Request type already implies folks should use _meta as described in this PR, just not with the exact guidance. I suggest we update the schema once the docs around it (this PR) is merged.

Specifically, this PR describes some use cases:

• Params MAY include a _meta key with value type [key: string]: unknown;. This
  allows propagation of metadata from client to server, such as progressToken.
  OpenTelemetry SDKs default to propagate W3C traceparent,tracestate and baggage
  fields inside _meta as well.

Whereas in the schema today, there are 13 occurrences of this advice on _meta

This result property is reserved by the protocol to allow clients and servers to attach additional metadata to their responses.

The recent work by @findleyr and friends on the Go SDK design implies code generation, and there's a small gap you can see if you look carefully here.
https://go.googlesource.com/tools/+/refs/heads/master/internal/mcp/design/design.md#protocol-types

Request and JSONRPCRequest are implied as base types, and document _meta, but AFAICT, they are not strictly defined as base types. This means code generators can make a miss and prevent _meta from flowing through as desired. Specifically, it is easy to not attach the implied base properties on a request, specifically _meta here.

There are a number of ways to address code generation coherency.. we could make a single "meta" type and use that for _meta everywhere (e.g. to consolidate docs). We could add meta to all places already implied by the Request conventions (so that they are honored in code generators). We could also use other techniques to make a strict relationship to Request so that there's less duplication.

Finally, we can decide to not solve it strictly in the schema. Rather, stick with advice here and mention to code generator authors that there's a relationship with anything ending in Request, Response etc that should have special casing.

I don't have a preferred way out, but I would like to help close out this topic. Any thoughts?

added a section to the description that it is possible a future JSON-RPC 2.1 could formalize "_meta". That said, I don't expect this to change any current practice. cc @mpcm

@codefromthecrypt See recently posted: https://groups.google.com/g/json-rpc/c/pFFuI0JN8Cs
tl;dr> I think it should live as an extension spec outside of json-rpc, lots of dust to settle yet, but the concept clearly is going to be needed with the payloads that want all this context to track perf/perf-spend, history of actions, consequence, model seeds, etc. The 'old http header' answers wont really work well here.

In the JSON-RPC group discussion, I mentioned that responses could benefit from a meta property too. That can be discussed and handled separately from this PR, but I wanted to bring up naming consistency. If we standardize request.params._meta, what would be the equivalent for reponse? response.result._meta plus reponse.error._meta? response._meta?

The protocol currently uses request.params._meta for progressToken, but would a top-level request._meta or request.meta be better? I think the biggest argument against it would be backward compatibility, but the SDKs could handle that based on the MCP version.

@jonathanhefner Thanks for the suggestion - personally, if the compatibility issue is acceptable I would suggest top level meta fields request.meta and response.meta. We see the sdks currently have to do some awkward typing to have method-specific param types that also accept the generic meta, with the json schema version of the protocol effectively not modeling this at all. If moving meta, including the current progress token, to top level it could really simplify that.

We have a similar need. I too would prefer something outside of the params, although it's a good way to experiment for the time being.

going to close this out as it hasn't moved forward in a month. happy to re-open when maintainers are interested in a change. Meanwhile, per the description, there are enough artifacts here and there to suggest request.params._meta is already in use by the spec and so the documentation concern is less due to that.

FWIW, i was able to abuse the protocol's _meta for this without changing the request schema or the protocol or the clients:

sending: https://github.com/dylibso/mcp-otel/blob/2407c736c92d6a5e71b454845d839f33dabbbfca/src/agent.ts#L122
receiving: https://github.com/dylibso/mcp-otel/blob/2407c736c92d6a5e71b454845d839f33dabbbfca/src/servers/fetch.ts#L27

I think this should be safe if you do your best to avoid name collisions, but going to ask around.

Doing the actual context propagation and naming of everything works, but is a little tedious if you're not familiar with it. This could perhaps be part of an otel adapter for the SDKs, or one day adopted with the SDKs if some things can be agreed upon.

@bhelx thx for the feedback. I will add to the description your use of this pattern which aligns with others mentioned there including Arize Openinference which is an otel SDK. That way folks don't have to scroll through comments should there be a desire to formalize this later.

thanks @dsp-ant makes sense. I added text I believe highlights this more clearly in the last commit.

ok added the spec and changelog. 🚢 when ready or tell me what's next. Thanks, all!

Polish notes:

I set this status to Final as it is accepted and reverse documents the existing c# SDK implementation, which at the same time serves as a reference. This is inline with other SEPs all marked final, as well.

For the SEP date, I noticed another is using the PR creation date, so went with that.

Maintainer Activity Check

Hi @Kludex!

You're assigned to this SEP but there hasn't been any activity from you in 19 days.

Please provide an update on:

• Current status of your review/work
• Any blockers or concerns
• Expected timeline for next steps

If you're no longer able to sponsor this SEP, please let us know so we can find another maintainer.

This is an automated message from the SEP lifecycle bot.

happy to rebase if this is keen to be merged if I do

@pja-ant @dsp-ant What else is needed here?

I have been following this issue and luckily am not in a situation to be hurt either way so will say it - if multiple anthropic employees needs to sign off on a change, this doesn't seem to be a community project?

Happy to be proven wrong - I am not suspecting malice at all but governance is important and I think we need to see it clearly through these examples.

@Kludex it's accepted, so go ahead and land once the merge conflicts are resolved. Thanks!

@anuraaga you can read about MCP governance here: https://modelcontextprotocol.io/community/governance

@pja-ant docs are easy to write, or vibe. What matters is what actually happens in practice. If this was just a confirmation point, great, but still the optics are

• we now have a green check from anthropic and can merge

• -ant members at least look like they are managing things

So the suggestion is to not approve the PR for these situations to make clear there isn't gate keeping (can't take it back so no worries this time), and if possible remove -ant from GitHub usernames participating in the community since it's really bad optics.

These are suggestions and if you disagree, feel free to ignore - I have a feeling that's what will happen. But I have seen many good and bad oss communities before, and am hoping this ends up on the better side.

@Kludex mind resolving the conflicts, and we can merge this? 😄 actually, this was a simple enough change.

@pja-ant - can you please re-approve?

@Kludex mind resolving the conflicts, and we can merge this? 😄 actually, this was a simple enough change.

@pja-ant - can you please re-approve?

I can't merge things here... 🤔