Ported and adapted from the BuildMyDiscord SEO setup:
- lib/seo.ts — single source for site constants, the FAQ data (shared by
the rendered FAQ and the FAQPage schema so they never drift) and JSON-LD
builders.
- Rich root metadata: title template, keywords, Open Graph, Twitter card,
robots directives, canonical.
- JSON-LD: Organization + WebSite + SoftwareApplication sitewide, FAQPage
on the landing page. No AggregateRating — there are no real reviews yet.
- app/robots.ts — allow all, explicit allow-list for AI answer-engine
crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, …), disallow private routes.
- app/sitemap.ts — every public marketing + docs route.
- app/opengraph-image.tsx — monochrome on-brand 1200x630 share card.
- app/manifest.ts + public/llms.txt.
- Per-page metadata for pricing, changelog, security, privacy, terms,
docs, templates and status.
- opengraph-image + apple-icon pinned to the edge runtime — next/og
crashes during a Node-runtime prerender.
Verified: next build passes; /robots.txt, /sitemap.xml,
/manifest.webmanifest and /opengraph-image all generate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The marketplace is the distribution channel — fork a working server or
publish your own — but it was absent from the landing page. Adds a
section between Examples and Pricing with a second conversion path into
/templates.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Goal: maximize template volume without a dark pattern and without leaking data.
Wizard Done-page Share panel:
- 'Share as template in the marketplace (recommended)' checkbox, default ON,
rendered inline in the build-success flow where every user lands.
- Honest copy — corrected a draft that claimed 'only abstracted code pattern is
shared'. That is false: the FULL generated code becomes publicly viewable on
the template detail page (by design, for pre-fork audit). The panel now says:
'Your secrets stay private ... but your generated code becomes publicly
viewable so others can audit it before forking. Unshare anytime.'
- When checked: inline minimal form — short description (prefilled from the
spec), category select, optional per-secret credential hints. One 'Publish to
marketplace' click. Not auto-published silently — that would be a consent dark
pattern; one visible deliberate click keeps it clean.
- Forked servers don't show the panel (re-publishing a fork is an edge case).
Owner unshare/reshare:
- GET /v1/servers/:id/template — owner lookup, drives the Publish tab UI.
- PATCH /v1/templates/:slug/visibility { shared } — owner-only toggle between
public and hidden. 403 for non-owners, 409 if an admin took it down (owner
cannot resurrect an admin takedown). Audit-logged as template.unshare /
template.reshare.
- Server-detail Publish tab now detects an existing template and shows the
shared status (public/hidden/takedown badge), fork count, a marketplace link
and an Unshare/Re-share button — instead of the publish form.
Why this is safe to default ON:
- Secrets are architecturally bound to mcp_servers, never copied into templates.
Publish reads tools_schema + generated_code only; the secrets table is never
touched. Data leak is structurally impossible, not policy-dependent.
- Publish re-scans the generated code for banned patterns AND hardcoded
credentials (sovereign-audit hardening) before it can reach the marketplace.
- The user sees a visible, pre-ticked checkbox and reads one honest sentence
before publishing. Privacy-conscious users untick; everyone else contributes
volume. Informed consent, GDPR-clean.
Verified end-to-end via API:
GET server/:id/template -> null (unpublished)
POST /v1/templates -> published, slug share-test-server
GET server/:id/template -> status public
PATCH visibility {shared:false} -> hidden, drops out of public list
PATCH visibility {shared:true} -> public again
UI: Publish tab renders the shared-status panel with View + Unshare (screenshot
confirmed).
Also: hero badge date set to 2026-05-20. Changed 'MCP spec 2025-11-25' to
'updated 2026-05-20' — claiming an MCP spec dated today would be factually wrong
(no such spec release exists); 'updated' is accurate and gives the requested
fresh date. The real spec date is still cited correctly in /docs.
