claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix Feature request: Allow MCP servers from managed plugins in allowedMcpServers [1 comments, 2 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
anthropics/claude-code#46296Fetched 2026-04-11 06:24:03
View on GitHub
Comments
1
Participants
2
Timeline
5
Reactions
0
Timeline (top)
labeled ×4commented ×1

Root Cause

strictKnownMarketplaces already establishes a trust boundary at the plugin level. MCP servers bundled by those plugins should be able to inherit that trust. Today there is no mechanism to express this, leaving a gap where manually-added MCP servers from arbitrary sources cannot be blocked without also breaking all plugin MCPs.

Code Example

{
  "strictKnownMarketplaces": [
    { "source": "github", "repo": "my-org/plugins" }
  ],
  "allowedMcpServers": [
    { "source": "managedPlugins" }
  ]
}
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Problem

There is currently no way for enterprise admins to say "allow MCP servers that come from managed plugins, block everything else."

allowedMcpServers: [] in managed settings blocks all MCP servers including plugin-provided ones (which use the plugin:<name>:<server> naming convention). The colon in those names also cannot be used in serverName entries due to validation (#32882, #32883). The result: you can either allow all MCP servers or block all of them — there is no middle ground that respects the managed plugin trust boundary already established by strictKnownMarketplaces.

Proposed solution

Add a sentinel value to allowedMcpServers that allows any MCP server registered by an enabled plugin from an approved marketplace:

{
  "strictKnownMarketplaces": [
    { "source": "github", "repo": "my-org/plugins" }
  ],
  "allowedMcpServers": [
    { "source": "managedPlugins" }
  ]
}

This would allow plugin MCPs through while blocking anything a user adds manually via claude mcp add.

Why this matters

strictKnownMarketplaces already establishes a trust boundary at the plugin level. MCP servers bundled by those plugins should be able to inherit that trust. Today there is no mechanism to express this, leaving a gap where manually-added MCP servers from arbitrary sources cannot be blocked without also breaking all plugin MCPs.

extent analysis

TL;DR

Add a sentinel value to allowedMcpServers to allow MCP servers registered by enabled plugins from approved marketplaces.

Guidance

  • Introduce a new configuration option to allowedMcpServers that distinguishes between manually added MCP servers and those provided by managed plugins.
  • Update the validation logic to accept the plugin:<name>:<server> naming convention for plugin-provided MCP servers.
  • Consider implementing a whitelist or trust boundary for managed plugins to ensure only approved plugins can register MCP servers.
  • Review the strictKnownMarketplaces configuration to ensure it aligns with the new trust boundary for MCP servers.

Example

{
  "strictKnownMarketplaces": [
    { "source": "github", "repo": "my-org/plugins" }
  ],
  "allowedMcpServers": [
    { "source": "managedPlugins" }
  ]
}

Notes

The proposed solution relies on the ability to distinguish between manually added MCP servers and those provided by managed plugins. This may require updates to the underlying validation and configuration logic.

Recommendation

Apply workaround by introducing a sentinel value to allowedMcpServers to allow MCP servers registered by enabled plugins from approved marketplaces, as this provides a middle ground that respects the managed plugin trust boundary.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING