Support for other MCP types

[Nicholas-Schaub]

Awesome project. Started going down the road of building my own, and then found this.

It looks like in the current state, endpoints are only exposed as tools. However, quite often endpoints are exposing data that might be more properly classified as resources.

It would be nice to allow some kind of tagging system to allow mcp type tagging in the fastapi decorators, or allow each mcp type to be defined in the add_mcp_server.

[shahar4499]

I agree. We are working on a roadmap for the project and one of the topics is broader support and not just support for tools. We will probably add this as an item. And I think a decorator is the right approach.

[Nicholas-Schaub]

Happy to be a part of those discussions if you all are open to it. We plan on using mcp extensively, and am happy to contribute in any way.

[shahar4499]

Just revisiting this one. I don't have a strong opinion but as things evolve lately, it seems to me more and more that Prompts and Resources are far less used features than tools.

It seems that most MCP servers out there expose things like documentation, static content, knowledge, etc. as tools and not as resources, which makes sense because tools are the only feature in MCP that is LLM-controlled, according to the spec.

So, I wonder how much of a priority this is