fix(mcp): print unknown API compatibility in status (#6263)

[thomasalvaedison7777-lgtm]

Summary

• Human-readable loopover-mcp status now covers the api_compatibility unknown case (unparseable minimum version), matching doctor()'s warning instead of omitting compatibility entirely.
• Adds a regression test that feeds an unparseable minMcpVersion and asserts both JSON and human status output report it.
• Closes fix(mcp): status() silently omits the api_compatibility "unknown" case that doctor() handles #6263

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Ran targeted MCP CLI coverage: npx vitest run test/unit/mcp-cli-doctor.test.ts (19/19 passed), including the new #6263 regression. Full npm run test:ci not run yet on this Windows checkout (platform-forced npm ci --force); run the full gate before push.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

N/A — CLI-only change.

Notes

• doctor() was left unchanged; only status()'s human-readable branch gained the missing unknown arm.

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.60%. Comparing base (1e9f8c3) to head (dec04c1).
⚠️ Report is 27 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6363   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.60%   95.60%           
=======================================
  Files         597      597           
  Lines       47191    47191           
  Branches    15019    15019           
=======================================
  Hits        45117    45117           
  Misses       1290     1290           
  Partials      784      784           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	44.15% <ø> (ø)
shard-2	36.52% <ø> (+0.12%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.54% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
shard-4	34.68% <ø> (+0.06%)	⬆️
shard-5	31.57% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-6	44.87% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 05:28:07 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 95/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
Small, targeted fix adding a missing 'unknown' arm to the human-readable status() output so it mirrors doctor()'s existing handling of unparseable minimum versions, closing #6263. The fix is a straightforward additional else-if branch matching the existing status/unavailable pattern, and the accompanying test verifies both the JSON status and the human-readable output contain the expected unknown-version message. This is a minimal, well-scoped bug fix with a directly relevant regression test.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The inline comment '// Mirror doctor()'s unknown arm (fix(mcp): status() silently omits the api_compatibility "unknown" case that doctor() handles #6263)' at loopover-mcp.js is a bit redundant with the PR/test description but is harmless documentation.
• Consider asserting the exact minVersion value is echoed verbatim (not just substring 'not-a-semver') to guard against future message format changes in mcp-cli-doctor.test.ts.
• Confirm the full test:ci suite (not just the targeted doctor test file) is run before merge, per the PR's own validation checklist gap.
• Consider using a shared message-building helper if a third status arm is ever added, to avoid duplicating the same process.stdout.write pattern three times.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6263
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 14 registered-repo PR(s), 8 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	thomasalvaedison7777-lgtm; Gittensor profile; 14 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Review context

• Author: thomasalvaedison7777-lgtm
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 14 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review