IMPLEMENTATION PROFILES
Canonical Spec vs Practical Profiles
MCP-AQL intentionally separates normative protocol authority from practical, evolving reference profiles. This boundary prevents implementation details from being mistaken as protocol law.
On this page
Jump to a section
Use the outline to move through longer pages without losing your place.
Related reading
Go Deeper In The Full Spec
The protocol authority remains on-site in the spec pages, while implementation repos stay as practical reference material.
Related Summary Pages
These pages are the closest summary-layer companions to the profile and implementation story.
Boundary Model
| Layer | Authority | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Normative protocol text | spec repository | Defines conformance requirements and behavior contracts |
| Reference runtime guidance | mcpaql-adapter repository | Implementation architecture and plugin/runtime patterns |
| Example mappings | examples repository | Domain adaptation patterns for API surfaces |
| Practical production profile | DollhouseMCP production server | Large real-world validation of protocol viability |
Reference Repositories
Implementation Guidance
Example And Tooling Tracks
Public Messaging Guidance
- State clearly that spec is canonical and implementation profiles are practical references.
- Describe practical profiles as evidence of viability, not as normative definition.
- Call out known-open areas as launch-draft scope, not hidden debt.
- Publish examples as they become available and keep status explicit (draft vs production).