Priority and Roadmap
Organizing priorities and timelines for MCP development.
About This Document
To generate maximum value with limited resources, it is crucial to determine what to develop first. This document presents a priority matrix that considers current strengths, market demand, and implementation difficulty, and organizes short-term, medium-term, and long-term roadmaps.
Additionally, we discuss project evaluation by Grok and publishing strategies (Note/Qiita/Zenn/GitHub), outlining a growth strategy for the entire ecosystem beyond just technical development.
Current Strengths
We analyze our strengths from three perspectives, drawing on the specialized knowledge and implementation assets accumulated through MCP development.
MCP Development Priority Matrix
To determine priorities for new MCP development, we conducted a matrix analysis using two axes: implementation difficulty and value/demand. The following chart shows the positioning of each MCP candidate.
Phased Roadmap
Phase 1: Foundation Strengthening (Short-term: 1-3 months)
Goal: Maximize utilization of existing MCPs, establish Skills/Agents
| Task | Status | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Documentation for existing MCP usage | In Progress | 5 stars |
| Create Translation Workflow Skill | TODO | 4 stars |
| Define RFC Specialist Sub-agent | TODO | 4 stars |
| Develop CLAUDE.md Templates | TODO | 3 stars |
Phase 2: Expansion (Medium-term: 3-6 months)
Goal: Build new MCPs, expand ecosystem
| Task | Status | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Build OpenAPI MCP | Concept | 4 stars |
| Build OWASP MCP | Concept | 4 stars |
| Build Angular MCP | Concept | 3 stars |
| Enhance rfcxml-mcp features | TODO | 3 stars |
Phase 3: Deployment (Long-term: 6+ months)
Goal: Community contribution, expand specialized domains
| Task | Status | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| ISO Standards MCP | Concept | 2 stars |
| BIM/IFC MCP | Concept | 2 stars |
| Healthcare MCP (HL7 FHIR) | Concept | 1 star |
| Complete Note Article Series | TODO | 3 stars |
Detailed Roadmap
Phase 1 Details
Phase 2 Details
Priority Decision Criteria
Evaluation Axes
| Axis | Description | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Fit with Strengths | Can we leverage existing knowledge/experience? | 30% |
| Immediate Impact | Can it deliver value quickly? | 25% |
| Demand | Are there expected users? | 20% |
| Implementation Difficulty | Feasibility | 15% |
| Uniqueness | Presence of competitors | 10% |
Evaluation Examples
| MCP | Strengths | Immediate Impact | Demand | Difficulty | Uniqueness | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAPI MCP | A | A | A | B | C | 85 |
| OWASP MCP | B | A | A | B | B | 80 |
| Angular MCP | A | B | B | B | A | 75 |
| ISO MCP | C | C | B | C | B | 50 |
| BIM/IFC MCP | C | C | C | C | A | 45 |
Utilization Plan for Existing MCPs
rfcxml-mcp
| Initiative | Details | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Documentation Enhancement | Add more usage examples to README | Phase 1 |
| Feature Enhancement | Cross-RFC search capability | Phase 2 |
| Integration Enhancement | Integration workflow with w3c-mcp | Phase 2 |
xcomet-mcp-server
| Initiative | Details | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Increase Awareness | Publish translation workflow case studies | Phase 1 |
| Performance | Document GPU usage | Phase 1 |
| Integration | Integration Skill with DeepL MCP | Phase 1 |
rxjs-mcp-server
| Initiative | Details | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Pattern Enhancement | More use case patterns | Phase 2 |
| Angular Integration | Integration with Angular MCP | Phase 2 |
Strategy Based on Grok's Evaluation
Potential of xcomet-mcp-server
"There is sufficient potential for this to take off within the next year" (Grok evaluation)
Actions:
- Publish translation workflow case studies (Note)
- Demo of DeepL + Claude + xCOMET
- Outreach to Japanese-speaking and European communities
Potential of rfcxml-mcp
"Could surge if the protocol-understanding agent boom arrives after 2027" (Grok evaluation)
Actions:
- Demos with hot RFCs (QUIC, HTTP/3, TLS 1.3)
- Expand checklist generation examples
- Establish implementation support workflow
Publishing Strategy
Note Article Plan
| Theme | Content | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| RFC x AI | Reading/interacting with RFCs via MCP | Phase 1 |
| Translation Workflow | DeepL + xCOMET in practice | Phase 1 |
| Democratization of Knowledge | The essential value of MCP | Phase 1 |
| Agent Design | Distinguishing Skills/Agents/MCPs | Phase 2 |
Principles for Technical Publishing
- Structure articles as Concept -> Implementation -> Results
- Show concrete deliverables (code, checklists)
- Clearly articulate value to the Japanese-speaking community
Risks and Countermeasures
| Risk | Impact | Countermeasure |
|---|---|---|
| MCP Specification Changes | Modifications to existing MCPs | Monitor official specs, respond early |
| Emergence of Competing MCPs | Difficulty differentiating | Differentiate with unique value (Japanese, expertise) |
| Time Constraints | Schedule delays | Adjust with Phase priorities |
| Misjudging Demand | Build without adoption | Build small and validate |
Success Metrics
Short-term (Phase 1)
- [x] Complete documentation systematization
- [ ] Define 3+ Skills/Agents
- [x] Achieve usage in real projects
Medium-term (Phase 2)
- [x] Release 2+ new MCPs → 4 released (w3c-mcp, epsg-mcp, pdf-spec-mcp, pdf-reader-mcp)
- [ ] Reach 10+ total GitHub Stars
- [ ] Publish 5+ Note articles
- [x] Publish 4+ npm packages → 6 packages published
Long-term (Phase 3)
- [x] Establish MCP ecosystem → 6 npm packages published
- [ ] Gain community recognition
- [ ] Receive external inquiries/contributions
Next Actions
Immediate Tasks
- Reflect this document on GitHub
- Create Translation Workflow Skill
- Define RFC Specialist Sub-agent
Tasks for This Month
- Write Note article on xcomet use cases
- Improve README for existing MCPs
- Create CLAUDE.md template