Skip to content

Conversation

@domdomegg
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@domdomegg domdomegg requested a review from olaservo August 23, 2025 07:05
@domdomegg domdomegg added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Aug 23, 2025
olaservo
olaservo previously approved these changes Aug 23, 2025
Copy link
Member

@olaservo olaservo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is great! Added a non-blocking suggestion.

@olaservo olaservo dismissed their stale review August 23, 2025 17:43

Thought of a couple more questions

olaservo
olaservo previously approved these changes Aug 23, 2025
Copy link
Member

@olaservo olaservo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(Left one more suggestion)

@domdomegg
Copy link
Member Author

@claude please implement both of Ola's suggestions - I agree with both of them :)

@claude
Copy link
Contributor

claude bot commented Aug 25, 2025

Claude finished @domdomegg's task —— View job


Completed both of Ola's suggestions

I've successfully implemented both review suggestions:

Changes Made:

  1. Improved accessibility (line 15): Changed "Ergonomic improvements" to "Usability improvements" to make the language more accessible
  2. Added MCP protocol features guidance (line 19): Added a new bullet point encouraging enhancements that demonstrate underutilized MCP protocol features beyond Tools, with filesystem-server's Roots support as the example

The changes have been committed and pushed to the PR branch.

Todo List:

  • Read the current CONTRIBUTING.md file to understand context
  • Implement suggestion 1: Replace technical language with "usability" on line 15
  • Implement suggestion 2: Add content about reference servers utilizing protocol features on line 18
  • Commit and push changes

…tocol features guidance

- Replace 'Ergonomic improvements' with 'Usability improvements' for better accessibility
- Add guidance encouraging enhancements that demonstrate underutilized MCP protocol features

Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg@users.noreply.github.com>
@domdomegg
Copy link
Member Author

@claude can you move the bit about demoing new features to the 'we welcome' section, and rename the 'new features' point to be something like 'other new features'

@claude
Copy link
Contributor

claude bot commented Aug 25, 2025

Claude finished @domdomegg's task —— View job


Completed reorganization of CONTRIBUTING.md

I've successfully made both requested changes:

Changes Made:

  1. Moved MCP protocol features content: The bullet point about "Enhancements that demonstrate MCP protocol features" has been moved from the "We're more selective about" section to the "We welcome" section
  2. Renamed section: Changed "New features" to "Other new features" in the selective section

The content about demonstrating MCP protocol features (like Roots support in filesystem-server) is now positioned as something actively welcomed rather than something the project is selective about.

Todo List:

  • Read current CONTRIBUTING.md to understand structure
  • Move "demoing new features" content to "we welcome" section
  • Rename "new features" point to "other new features"
  • Commit and push changes

claude bot and others added 2 commits August 25, 2025 17:45
…' section and rename to 'other new features'

Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Member

@olaservo olaservo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me!

@olaservo olaservo merged commit fe9db63 into main Aug 26, 2025
23 checks passed
@olaservo olaservo deleted the adamj/contributing-docs branch August 26, 2025 14:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation Improvements or additions to documentation

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants