hawkBit MCP server #2871
hawkBit MCP server #2871
Conversation
denislavprinov
commented
Jan 15, 2026
denislavprinov
commented
- Introduces a new Model Context Protocol (MCP) server module (hawkbit-mcp) that enables AI assistants to interact with hawkBit
- Provides MCP tools for managing all hawkBit entities: Targets, Distribution Sets, Software Modules, Rollouts, Actions, and Target Filters
- Includes MCP resources for hawkBit documentation
- Exposes predefined prompts
- Supports credential pass-through authentication to hawkBit REST API
denislavprinov
force-pushed
the
feature/hawkbit-mcp-server
branch
from
dc059b7 to
b0d48e0
Compare
hawkbit-monolith/hawkbit-update-server/src/main/resources/application.properties
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
hawkbit-mcp/src/main/java/org/eclipse/hawkbit/mcp/server/HawkbitMcpServerApplication.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...-mcp/src/main/java/org/eclipse/hawkbit/mcp/server/client/HawkBitAuthenticationValidator.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Denislav Prinov <denislav.prinov@bosch.com>
denislavprinov
force-pushed
the
feature/hawkbit-mcp-server
branch
from
f1f3e2d to
1607ecf
Compare
…er build Signed-off-by: Denislav Prinov <denislav.prinov@bosch.com>
denislavprinov
force-pushed
the
feature/hawkbit-mcp-server
branch
from
1607ecf to
5946a09
Compare
|
|
|
||
| ```bash | ||
| # Linux/Mac | ||
| echo -n "<TENANT>\\<USERNAME>:<PASSWORD>" | base64 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
<TENANT>\\<USERNAME> does not work in hawkbit. Authentication should be only with <USERNAME> only.
| */ | ||
| @Slf4j | ||
| @Component | ||
| public class HawkbitAuthenticationValidator { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider makingHawkbitAuthenticationValidator conditional on property hawkbit.mcp.validation.enabled
When disabled:
- No HawkbitAuthenticationValidator bean will be created
- No authentication cache will be created
- The security filter chain will be lightweight
| @Slf4j | ||
| @Configuration | ||
| @RequiredArgsConstructor | ||
| public class HawkbitClientConfiguration { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider separating Http and STDIO Client Configurations, making them conditional on a mode property.
Benefits of This Approach:
- Each configuration class handles exactly one mode
- Mode is set via property, not runtime guessing
- Implementation is simpler and more readable
- Easy to add new modes
| * Rollout-specific operation configuration including lifecycle operations. | ||
| */ | ||
| @Data | ||
| public static class RolloutConfig extends EntityConfig { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding @EqualsAndHashCode(callSuper = true/false) if equals/hashCode implementation must (not) call super class.
| Long actionId, | ||
| List<Long> actionIds, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you need both actionId and actionIds?
| * @param createBody the request body for CREATE operation | ||
| * @param updateBody the request body for UPDATE operation | ||
| */ | ||
| public record ManageDistributionSetRequest( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would rather create different Create/Update/Delete Requests.
The Sealed interface could be used. When migrating to Java 21, the switch with pattern match is a really good approach here.
| public record ManageRolloutRequest( | ||
| RolloutOperation operation, | ||
| Long rolloutId, | ||
| MgmtRolloutRestRequestBodyPost createBody, | ||
| MgmtRolloutRestRequestBodyPut updateBody, | ||
| String remark | ||
| ) {} |
| public record ManageSoftwareModuleRequest( | ||
| Operation operation, | ||
| Long softwareModuleId, | ||
| MgmtSoftwareModuleRequestBodyPost createBody, | ||
| MgmtSoftwareModuleRequestBodyPut updateBody | ||
| ) {} |
3 participants
