Follow-up to PR #84 review.
Context
client.request_bytes (in generated servers) currently reads the full
response body via response.content with no upper bound. For the "help
people build MCP servers fast" default that is the right choice, but a
truly large upstream body (multi-GB PDF, tarball, archive) will OOM
the generated server.
An earlier iteration of PR #84 streamed the body via
httpx.AsyncClient.stream(...) + aiter_bytes() with a 32 MiB cap
configurable via MCP_MAX_BINARY_RESPONSE_BYTES. That shape was
reverted as too complex for a scaffolding repo, but the underlying
concern remains.
Open questions
- Where should the cap live — scope YAML (per-tool), server-level
config, or a hard default baked into the renderer?
- Do we want in-memory reads with an early fail, or stream-to-tempfile
so the caller can hand MCP a path instead of bytes?
- Avoid the env-var override pattern from the reverted version — if
configurable, prefer something declared in mcp-scope.yaml.
Non-goals
- Re-introducing
MCP_MAX_BINARY_RESPONSE_BYTES as-is.
- Any change to the
response_kind contract.
Follow-up to PR #84 review.
Context
client.request_bytes(in generated servers) currently reads the fullresponse body via
response.contentwith no upper bound. For the "helppeople build MCP servers fast" default that is the right choice, but a
truly large upstream body (multi-GB PDF, tarball, archive) will OOM
the generated server.
An earlier iteration of PR #84 streamed the body via
httpx.AsyncClient.stream(...) + aiter_bytes()with a 32 MiB capconfigurable via
MCP_MAX_BINARY_RESPONSE_BYTES. That shape wasreverted as too complex for a scaffolding repo, but the underlying
concern remains.
Open questions
config, or a hard default baked into the renderer?
so the caller can hand MCP a path instead of bytes?
configurable, prefer something declared in
mcp-scope.yaml.Non-goals
MCP_MAX_BINARY_RESPONSE_BYTESas-is.response_kindcontract.