Thread

AB
Alexander Balashov8:44 AMOpen in Slack
👋 Hey team, I'm Alexander. I'll be working on https://github.com/archestra-ai/archestra/issues/3790 . Just wanted to drop a comment to another person that the issue is reserved for the interviews, but then Matvey dropped a comment. Thank you!
👋1

8 replies
J(
joey (archestra team)12:46 PMOpen in Slack
welcome!
👋1
AB
Alexander Balashov1:51 PMOpen in Slack
@user hey, this how I plan to design it visually
1. Card, example of Organizarion scope connection badge
2. Initial connect dialog with updated Scope selector including Organizarion
3. Team selection still works as before
4. Connections list: "Shared" renamed to "Team", Organization block added
5. Empty state for the Organization block
IK
Innokentii Konstantinov (archestra team)2:26 PMOpen in Slack
Hi, thanks for reaching! UI makes sense to me, small questions:
1. How "Organization" chip should it look like when MCP has both org-wide and personal installation? Also Organization icon on the scope card is not matching the icon on the MCP Server card. Do we really need it? Maybe use org-logo instead 🤔
2. Should we really split "Shared connections" here on teams and "organization"
IK
Innokentii Konstantinov (archestra team)2:27 PMOpen in Slack
Current UI is not ideal though, feel free to propose any changes to make it simpler and better.
AB
Alexander Balashov3:01 PMOpen in Slack
How "Organization" chip should it look like when MCP has both org-wide and personal installation?
all of them (see screenshot). Org, personal, teams
Also Organization icon on the scope card is not matching the icon on the MCP Server card. Do we really need it?
by mistake, will make it consistent
Should we really split "Shared connections" here on teams and "organization"
Agreed, I can add "Add to organization" button along with "Add to team" and keep the "Shared connections" block mostly as is (show TeamName or "Oragnization" in the Owner column)
👍1
IK
Innokentii Konstantinov (archestra team)8:25 AMOpen in Slack
It all makes sense to me!
🙌1
AB
Alexander Balashov7:55 PMOpen in Slack
AB
Alexander Balashov7:35 AMOpen in Slack
BTW while working on the issue I noticed the group labels on the MCP Registry index page are misleading — and so are the variable names in the code.
In InternalMCPCatalog.tsx, items are split into two sections based on scope:
  (item) => item.scope === "personal",
);

const publishedItems = allFilteredItems.filter(
  (item) => item.scope !== "personal",
);```
These render under headings `Unpublished` and `Published`. The problem is that this implies a lifecycle — a personal connection looks like a draft waiting to be promoted. In reality `scope === "personal"` is a permanent access boundary, not a transient state. A user could reasonably ask "how do I publish this?" and there's no answer.

Would it be ok to rename these to reflect what the distinction actually is (access scope)?

`draftItems` → `personalItems`,

`publishedItems` → `sharedItems`,

headings:

`Unpublished` → `Personal`
`Published` → `Shared`

Pure rename, no behavior change. Also, that would be similar to *Connections* tab wordings.

The code was added here <https://github.com/archestra-ai/archestra/pull/3180/changes#diff-dda8f6bec4ed047f79cc8f7b815b10028c5a3e3f3c09e6d1bc63e436ae2e6e8eR968> by <@U0975SLALTT>