Suggestion: Add reference to reusable GitHub Action (OtherVibes/mcp-publish-action) for publishing MCP servers

[OtherVibes]

Hi modelcontextprotocol/registry team,

We’d like to suggest adding a reference in your publishing docs (e.g. docs/guides/publishing/github-actions.md) to a reusable GitHub Action we’ve created, designed to simplify automated MCP server publishing.

Why this helps:

Your current docs guide users through setting up manual GitHub Actions workflows, which is clear but can be verbose and hard to maintain across projects.

Many in the ecosystem look for a ready-made, reusable Action to avoid repeating workflow code and to adopt best practices by default.

Having an official or community-endorsed Action referenced in docs will lower friction for new MCP server publishers and strengthen the protocol’s ecosystem.

About the Action:

Repo: OtherVibes/mcp-publish-action

What it does:
CI-native, reusable GitHub Action for publishing any MCP server to the MCP Registry, supports multiple registry types, automates server.json creation, uses GitHub OIDC authentication, and follows semantic versioning. Designed for maximum compatibility and simplicity.

Benefits:

• Zero need to copy workflow YAML steps, simply use and configure the reusable Action.
• Keeps up with protocol changes, streamlining maintenance for everyone.
• Fully aligns with your OIDC and validation best practices.

Request:
Would you consider adding a “Third-party Actions” or “Community Tools” mention for this Action, perhaps in the “Examples” or “Tips” section, or after your inline workflow example?
We'd also happy to open a PR directly if that’s preferred.

We’ve seen a lot of community demand for a plug-and-play solution, and I believe listing this Action could help new and existing MCP server authors succeed with less friction.

Thanks for considering, and happy to discuss or iterate as needed.

[rdimitrov]

Hey @OtherVibes, thanks for sharing this! 👋

It’s a great initiative! We were also planning to provide an action ourselves at some point and if it’s going to be referenced in the publishing docs I think we would prefer for it to live under this org/repository for obvious reasons, i.e. community trust and ownership, visibility, long-term maintenance, consistency with the API, etc.

That said we really appreciate the effort you’ve put into building and sharing this. It’s clear there’s value in having a reusable action to streamline the publishing. We would love to continue the conversation on how we might collaborate once this gets prioritised 👍

Thanks again for raising this! 🙌

[OtherVibes]

Thanks @rdimitrov for your quick response!

We’ve already built a generic, schema-driven Action with inputs tailored to MCP server publishing. You’re very welcome to take a look at the code and approach.

If you’d like, we can open an initial PR bringing this Action (as it exists) into your repository to kickstart collaboration. We’re happy to adapt or iterate on it according to any specific requirements, repo structure, or API preferences.

Let us know what works best for you.

[tadasant]

I think it'd be reasonable to start a "Community Resources for MCP Registry" section of the docs (similar to this) to collect a list of 3rd party (unvetted; appropriate disclaimer at the top of the list) tools folks are building. I've seen some "publish to registry" MCP servers, I know folks are building registry SDKs in various languages, etc. Then we can prioritize implementing the official action on our priority list without blocking giving visibility to community-built resources.

Unless @rdimitrov @domdomegg @toby are opposed, I think I'd be open to accepting a PR that starts that list somewhere in the docs.

[domdomegg]

Yep that seems reasonable with appropriate disclaimer!

[OtherVibes]

Thank you for the positive feedback on adding a community resources section.

I've opened PR #544 that implements this request by adding a Community Resources section to the GitHub Actions guide as originally suggested.