MCP TypeScript SDK: One HTTP request within the default size limit could exhaust server memory during validation
Summary
In affected versions, servers put no limit on how many array elements and object keys they validated in one request. One HTTP request within the default 4 MiB size limit could exhaust the server's memory, and the process aborted with
JavaScript heap out of memory.
No credentials are needed, unless you authenticate requests before they reach the SDK.
Am I affected?
Yes, if clients you do not fully trust can reach your server over HTTP. The risk is highest for
McpServer tools whose input contains an array or a record. stdio-only servers are not affected.
Affected versions:
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.3.0 through 1.31.0@modelcontextprotocol/server 2.0.0 through 2.2.0
Fix
Upgrade to:
- 1.x:
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.32.0 or later
- 2.x:
@modelcontextprotocol/server 2.3.0 or later
Upgrading alone changes nothing. The patched versions add an McpServer option, maxToolInputElements, that is off by default. Make both of these changes:
- Set
maxToolInputElements just above the largest input your tools need, for example new McpServer(info, { maxToolInputElements: 10_000 }). It counts array elements and object keys in a call's arguments. A call over the limit gets an isError: true result.
- Lower the request size limit to what your tools need. The option covers tool arguments only, and the size limit covers everything else. Set
maxRequestBodySize on the transport or createMcpHandler(). If you parse the body yourself, for example with express.json() or Fastify, set that parser's limit.
If you cannot upgrade yet, make the second change. maxRequestBodySize needs @modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.30.1 or @modelcontextprotocol/server 2.1.0. Below that, use a reverse proxy.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it