1MCP System Architecture
Vision: A unified, reliable proxy that makes multiple MCP servers appear as one, simplifying AI assistant integration while maintaining security and performance.
🎯 Purpose & Context
Problem: AI assistants need to connect to multiple MCP servers, but managing dozens of individual connections is complex, unreliable, and security-intensive.
Solution: 1MCP acts as a unified proxy/multiplexer that aggregates multiple MCP servers behind a single, reliable interface.
Success Metrics:
- Reliability: Stable operation with proper error handling
- Performance: Efficient request forwarding to backend servers
- Security: OAuth 2.1 authentication and secure defaults
- Simplicity: Single configuration file, easy deployment
📏 System Constraints
Hard Constraints
- Single Binary: Must deploy as one executable, no external dependencies
- MCP Protocol: Must be 100% compatible with MCP Latest specification
- Stdio Transport: Backend servers communicate via stdio or streamable http (security boundary)
- Configuration: All config via single JSON file, hot-reloadable
Soft Constraints
- Concurrent Connections: Handle multiple simultaneous client connections
- Backend Servers: Support multiple MCP servers per instance
- Network: Works behind corporate firewalls (HTTP/SSE only)
- Startup Time: Fast startup for development iterations
- Dependencies: Minimal external dependencies for security
Why These Constraints
- Single Binary: Enterprise deployment requirement - no complex setup
- Multi-Transport: Backend servers support stdio, HTTP, and streamable HTTP transports
- Hot Reload: Zero-downtime configuration updates required
🏗️ Architectural Principles
Principle 1: Reliability Over Performance
- System must stay operational even if individual backends fail
- Graceful degradation preferred over fast failure
- Connection management with retry logic and timeouts
Principle 2: Security by Default
- All endpoints require authentication unless explicitly disabled
- Backend servers run in isolated processes with secure transport protocols
- Input sanitization on all external data
- No sensitive data in logs
Principle 3: Simplicity Over Flexibility
- Single deployment model, not configurable
- Convention over configuration where possible
- Explicit rather than implicit behavior
Principle 4: Transparency to Clients
- MCP protocol compliance - clients don't know it's a proxy
- Error messages preserve backend server context
- No protocol modifications or extensions
🔄 Decision Framework
When evaluating new features or changes, ask:
Reliability Questions
- Does this reduce system availability?
- What happens if this component fails?
- Can the system continue operating without it?
Security Questions
- Does this expand the attack surface?
- Could this leak sensitive information?
- Are we maintaining defense in depth?
Simplicity Questions
- Does this add configuration complexity?
- Will this make deployment harder?
- Can we solve this with existing patterns?
Compatibility Questions
- Does this break MCP protocol compliance?
- Will existing clients continue to work?
- Are we preserving backend server interfaces?
📊 Quality Attribute Scenarios
Reliability Scenario
- Situation: Backend MCP server crashes during request processing
- Response: System detects failure, marks server unavailable, retries request on other servers if applicable
- Measure: <5 second recovery, client receives appropriate error, system remains available
- Current: Connection pooling with health checks, exponential backoff retry
Security Scenario
- Situation: Client attempts to access MCP server without proper authorization
- Response: OAuth token validation, scope checking, request denied with 403
- Measure: Zero unauthorized access, all attempts logged with client context
- Current: OAuth 2.1 with scope-based authorization, session management
Performance Scenario
- Situation: Multiple concurrent clients making requests to backend servers
- Response: Efficient request forwarding, proper error handling, async processing
- Measure: Reliable request processing, system remains responsive
- Current: Express.js with proper error handling, async request forwarding
Maintainability Scenario
- Situation: New MCP server added to configuration file
- Response: Hot reload detects change, spawns new server process, updates routing
- Measure: <30 seconds to become available, zero downtime
- Current: File system watching with debounced reload, graceful process management
🚫 System Boundaries & Anti-Patterns
What We Are
- MCP Protocol Proxy: Faithful implementation of MCP specification
- Authentication Gateway: OAuth 2.1 security layer
- Connection Multiplexer: Many clients to many servers
- Process Manager: Lifecycle management for backend servers
What We Are NOT
- Business Logic Engine: No data transformation or business rules
- Caching Layer: Every request goes to backend (for now)
- Service Mesh: Not a general-purpose service communication layer
- Database: No persistent storage of application data
Integration Boundaries
Anti-Patterns We Avoid
- Shared Database: No shared state between instances
- Network Dependencies: No calls to external services at runtime
- Protocol Extensions: No MCP protocol modifications
- Synchronous Chains: No blocking calls in request path
- Global State: All state is request-scoped or configuration
🗺️ Evolution Strategy
Phase 1: Single Instance Proxy (Current)
- Scope: One 1MCP instance per deployment
- Features: HTTP/SSE transport, OAuth, basic connection pooling
- Constraints: No horizontal scaling, local configuration only
Phase 2: Enhanced Features (Future)
- Scope: Additional operational features based on user feedback
- Features: Enhanced monitoring, advanced configuration options
- Migration: Backward compatible, optional enhancements
Phase 3: Advanced Capabilities (Future)
- Scope: Advanced features for enterprise use cases
- Features: Enhanced security, operational improvements
- Migration: Configuration extensions, no protocol changes
Evolution Principles
- Backward Compatibility: Existing deployments continue working
- Progressive Enhancement: New features are opt-in
- Zero Downtime: All migrations support hot upgrades
- Configuration Driven: Features enabled through configuration
⚡ Architecture Validation
Automated Architecture Testing
// Example: Architecture tests enforce our boundaries describe('Architecture Constraints', () => { test('No business logic in transport layer', () => { // Static analysis ensures transport only handles HTTP/auth }); test('All external calls use circuit breakers', () => { // Validate resilience patterns are used }); test('No direct database access outside repositories', () => { // Enforce data access patterns }); });Architecture Metrics
- Dependency Violations: 0 (enforced by tests)
- Cyclomatic Complexity: <10 per function (linting)
- Security Scan: 0 high/critical vulnerabilities
- API Compatibility: 100% MCP protocol compliance
- Test Coverage: >90% for critical paths
Continuous Validation
- Architecture tests run in CI/CD pipeline
- Dependency analysis in pull requests
- Security scanning on every build
- Performance regression testing
🔍 Observability & Monitoring
Health Indicators
- System Health: All core components operational
- Backend Health: Individual MCP server status
- Connection Health: Client connection pool status
- Configuration Health: Config file validity and reload status
Key Metrics
- Availability: System uptime percentage
- Latency: Request response time distribution
- Throughput: Requests per second capacity
- Error Rate: Failed requests percentage
- Resource Usage: Memory, CPU, connection counts
Monitoring Indicators
- Critical: System unavailable, authentication failures, configuration errors
- Warning: Backend server disconnections, repeated request failures
- Info: Configuration reloaded, new client connections, successful operations
🚨 Failure Modes & Recovery
Failure Categories
Backend Server Failures
- Symptoms: Process crash, unresponsive, invalid responses
- Detection: Health checks, request timeouts, error patterns
- Recovery: Process restart, connection retry, graceful degradation
- Escalation: Remove from rotation, alert operators
Configuration Failures
- Symptoms: Invalid JSON, missing servers, permission errors
- Detection: File parsing errors, validation failures
- Recovery: Retain previous valid configuration, log errors
- Escalation: Disable hot-reload, require manual intervention
Resource Exhaustion
- Symptoms: High memory usage, connection limits hit, slow responses
- Detection: Resource monitoring, performance degradation
- Recovery: Connection throttling, graceful degradation, load shedding
- Escalation: Service restart, horizontal scaling
Security Breaches
- Symptoms: Authentication bypass, unauthorized access, token leakage
- Detection: Security monitoring, anomaly detection, audit logs
- Recovery: Immediate service isolation, token revocation, forensic analysis
- Escalation: Complete service shutdown, incident response procedures
Recovery Expectations
- Backend Reconnection: Automatic with retry logic
- Configuration Reload: Immediate detection and application
- Security Incident: Immediate authentication failure response
- System Recovery: Restart and reload as needed
🏗️ Code Structure & Organization
Project Layout
The codebase follows a layered architecture with clear separation of concerns:
src/ ├── application/ # Application-level services │ └── services/ # Cross-cutting orchestration services │ ├── configReloadService.ts │ ├── healthService.ts │ └── tokenEstimationService.ts ├── auth/ # Authentication & authorization │ ├── storage/ # Repository pattern for auth data │ ├── sdkOAuthClientProvider.ts │ ├── sdkOAuthServerProvider.ts │ └── sessionTypes.ts ├── commands/ # CLI command implementations │ ├── app/ # App management commands │ ├── mcp/ # MCP server management commands │ ├── preset/ # Preset management commands │ ├── proxy/ # Proxy commands │ ├── serve/ # Server commands │ └── shared/ # Shared command utilities ├── config/ # Configuration management │ ├── configContext.ts │ ├── mcpConfigManager.ts │ ├── envProcessor.ts │ ├── projectConfigLoader.ts │ └── projectConfigTypes.ts ├── constants/ # Domain-organized constants │ ├── api.ts # API endpoints, ports, hosts │ ├── auth.ts # Authentication constants │ ├── mcp.ts # MCP protocol constants │ ├── paths.ts # File paths, directories │ └── index.ts # Barrel export ├── core/ # Core business logic │ ├── capabilities/ # MCP capability management │ ├── client/ # Client management │ ├── filtering/ # Request filtering logic │ ├── instructions/ # Template engine │ ├── loading/ # Async loading orchestration │ ├── notifications/ # Notification system │ ├── protocol/ # Protocol message handlers │ ├── server/ # Server lifecycle management │ └── types/ # Shared type definitions ├── domains/ # Domain modules │ ├── backup/ # Backup management domain │ ├── discovery/ # App discovery domain │ ├── preset/ # Preset management domain │ │ ├── manager/ # PresetManager │ │ ├── parsers/ # Tag query parsing │ │ ├── services/ # Preset services │ │ └── types/ # Preset types │ └── registry/ # MCP Registry domain │ ├── formatters/ # Registry-specific formatters │ ├── cacheManager.ts # Registry caching │ ├── mcpRegistryClient.ts # Registry client │ ├── mcpToolSchemas.ts # Registry schemas │ ├── searchFiltering.ts # Registry search │ └── types.ts # Registry types ├── logger/ # Logging infrastructure │ ├── configureGlobalLogger.ts │ └── [6 other logger files] ├── transport/ # Transport layer implementations │ ├── http/ # HTTP/SSE transport │ │ ├── middlewares/ # Express middlewares │ │ └── routes/ # API route handlers │ └── [5 transport files] └── utils/ # Generic utilities ├── core/ # Core utilities ├── ui/ # CLI utilities └── validation/ # Input validationArchitectural Layers
1. Application Layer (application/)
- Purpose: Cross-cutting orchestration services
- Responsibilities: Configuration reloading, health monitoring, token estimation
- Dependencies: Can depend on core and domains
- Examples:
configReloadService,healthService
2. Core Layer (core/)
- Purpose: Core business logic and domain entities
- Responsibilities: MCP protocol handling, capability management, server lifecycle
- Dependencies: Should not depend on application layer
- Examples:
ServerManager,ClientManager,CapabilityManager
3. Domain Layer (domains/)
- Purpose: Self-contained business domains
- Responsibilities: Specific business logic (presets, discovery, backup, registry)
- Dependencies: Can depend on core, should be independent
- Examples:
PresetManager,BackupManager,AppDiscovery,McpRegistryClient
4. Transport Layer (transport/)
- Purpose: Protocol implementations and communication
- Responsibilities: HTTP/SSE, STDIO, message routing
- Dependencies: Can depend on core and application
- Examples:
ExpressServer,StdioTransport
5. Infrastructure Layer (auth/, config/, logger/)
- Purpose: Cross-cutting infrastructure concerns
- Responsibilities: Authentication, configuration, logging
- Dependencies: Minimal dependencies, used by all layers
- Examples:
McpConfigManager,OAuthClientProvider
Design Principles
Domain-Driven Design
- Domains: Self-contained modules with clear boundaries
- Services: Application-level orchestration
- Core: Shared business logic and entities
Dependency Direction
Application → Core → Domains ↓ ↓ Transport → InfrastructureFile Organization
- Co-location: Related files grouped together
- Barrel Exports: Clean import paths with
index.ts - Domain Boundaries: Clear ownership and responsibilities
Naming Conventions
- Managers:
*Manager.tsfor stateful services - Services:
*Service.tsfor stateless operations - Types:
*Types.tsfor type definitions - Utils: Generic utilities only
Migration Benefits
The restructured codebase provides:
- 57% reduction in utils files (47 → 20)
- Clear domain boundaries with dedicated modules
- Better maintainability through organized structure
- Improved scalability with independent domains
- Enhanced developer experience with clear file locations
How It Works
1MCP acts as a proxy, managing and aggregating multiple MCP servers. It starts and stops these servers as subprocesses and forwards requests from AI assistants to the appropriate server. This architecture allows for a single point of entry for all MCP traffic, simplifying management and reducing overhead.
System Architecture
Request Flow
This architecture serves as our decision-making framework. When in doubt, refer back to our principles and constraints. All changes should strengthen these foundations, not weaken them.
