ZCP MCP Capability Matrix

This matrix tracks parity against the official MCP specification repository and the official MCP Python SDK from the perspective of this workspace.

ZCP serves two surfaces from one runtime:

the MCP-compatible surface for interoperability
the native ZCP surface for lower token usage and tighter orchestration

The table separates three questions:

is the feature implemented
is there compatibility coverage here
what does the native ZCP path improve

MCP Feature	Implemented On MCP Surface	Compatibility Coverage Here	ZCP Native Advantage
Lifecycle: `initialize`, `initialized`, `ping`	Yes	Yes	Smaller native envelopes
Tools: `tools/list`, `tools/call`	Yes	Yes	Compact registry, handle-first results, and semantic workflow profiles
Tool metadata: `title`, `annotations`, `outputSchema`, `execution`, `_meta`	Yes	Yes	Canonical metadata can stay out of prompt context
Resources: `resources/list`, `resources/read`, subscribe/update flow	Yes	Yes for core flows	Large content can stay off-context
Resource templates: `resources/templates/list`	Yes	Yes	Compact template discovery
Prompts: `prompts/list`, `prompts/get`	Yes	Yes	Expanded prompt artifacts do not need to remain model-visible
Completion: `completion/complete`	Yes	Yes	Native refs are smaller
Logging: `logging/setLevel`, `notifications/message`	Yes	Yes in SDK/runtime coverage	Operational summaries can stay outside prompt context
Roots: `roots/list`, `notifications/roots/list_changed`	Yes	Yes in SDK/runtime coverage	Same semantics with smaller envelopes
Progress notifications	Yes	Partial	Native progress payloads are shorter
Sampling	Yes	Partial	Less repeated schema/context echo
Elicitation	Yes	Partial	Compact accept/decline flow summaries
Tasks basic methods and statuses	Yes	Partial	Durable off-context state and result storage
Stdio transport	Yes	Yes	Same runtime with shorter native traffic
Streamable HTTP on `/mcp`	Yes	Yes	Native `/zcp` remains smaller
WebSocket transport on `/ws`	Yes	Yes for core client flow	Native socket traffic can be more compact
Authorization metadata	Yes	Partial	Native auth profile metadata stays runtime-owned
OAuth code flow, PKCE, refresh, registration, revocation	Yes	Partial	Same provider model can be reused for native surfaces

How To Read This Matrix

Yes in implementation means the feature is present in the current runtime.
Yes in compatibility coverage means this repository has concrete validation

for the feature or transport against the current implementation.

Partial means the feature exists and works in core scenarios, but broader

interoperability or edge-case coverage is still being tracked.

Current Position

The current implementation now includes:

stdio interoperability
streamable HTTP interoperability on /mcp
websocket interoperability on /ws
OAuth metadata and protected resource metadata
OAuth authorization code flow with PKCE
refresh token exchange
dynamic registration and revocation
task-augmented tool calls
async task lifecycle states

The strict remaining work is mostly:

broader compatibility coverage for progress, sampling, elicitation, and tasks
deeper reconnect and soak coverage for long-lived transports
broader auth interoperability coverage beyond the current validated flows

For the precise remaining list, use mcp_gap_todo.md.

Verified Performance Snapshot (Excel Semantic Suite v5)

Run metadata:

date: 2026-03-17
model: deepseek-chat (https://api.deepseek.com)
repeats: 1
cases: 37 (Tier A/B/C/D)
compared backends:
zcp_client_to_native_zcp
mcp_client_to_zcp_mcp_surface
artifacts:
zero-context-protocol-python/benchmark_reports/full_semantic_compare_v5/excel_llm_token_benchmark.json
zero-context-protocol-python/benchmark_reports/full_semantic_compare_v5/excel_llm_token_benchmark.md
zero-context-protocol-python/benchmark_reports/full_semantic_compare_v5/semantic_benchmark_summary.md

Scope	Native ZCP Avg Total	MCP Surface Avg Total	MCP/Native Ratio	Native Quality (Answer/Workbook/Tool)
Overall	8027.9	30723.7	3.83x	100.0% / 97.3% / 100.0%
Tier A	15979.4	17613.2	1.10x	100.0% / 93.8% / 100.0%
Tier B	1826.6	29239.4	16.01x	100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
Tier C	2091.1	72113.9	34.49x	100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
Tier D	2018.3	19375.7	9.60x	100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%

Interpretation notes:

native ZCP wins average token usage in every tier for this run
native ZCP is lower-token in 25/37 cases; the remaining 12 are all Tier A primitive cases
quality gaps are largest in complex tiers on the MCP surface path:
Tier C tool compliance: 57.1% vs native 100.0%
Tier D tool compliance: 16.7% vs native 100.0%