Filesystem server README should state it's a reference implementation and point to alternatives #5074

Which server?

filesystem (@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem)

Protocol era

Both, or not era-specific

MCP client

No response

The problem

In #897 (comment) it was suggested to clarify that the filesystem MCP server specifically (as well as all the MCP servers in this repository) is a reference implementation and it suggested to make a PR to link some MCP server intended to use instead. As PRs are no longer accepted, I am creating an issue, which I think is an even better idea for something like this.

I have made agentic-filesystem-mcp as I wanted to make a filesystem MCP server that avoids TOCTOU (which allows for example for symlink escapes) while remaining nice to use. It is written in Rust and uses cap-std, enforcing the sandbox at the OS level via capability-based APIs. It can be used as a replacement for the official filesystem server. Additionally, it implements content search, a feature that is missing from the reference implementation because it would cause maintenance hassle, as said in the mentioned issue. Hopefully it will be helpful.

Solution you have in mind (optional)

The solution I have in mind is adding this somewhere at the top of the readme of the filesystem MCP server:

> [!NOTE]
> This is a reference implementation meant to demonstrate how to build MCP servers. For alternatives with different trade-offs (such as content search or stricter sandboxing), see for example [agentic-filesystem-mcp](https://github.com/KubaZ2/agentic-filesystem-mcp).

Feel free to rephrase this.

Which MCP feature does it demonstrate? (optional)

No response

Alternatives or workarounds you have tried

No response

Already built it locally?

No response

Before you submit

• I searched existing issues and this is not a duplicate.
• This is a request for this repository or one of its servers, not a new server, the MCP specification or an SDK.