---
title: "Comment by Andrew on \"The Real Checklist for Turning an MCP Server Into a Production Service\" | Hashnode"
description: "Swapping in-memory state for a persistent store is exactly where I learned that MCP's tool contract doesn't guarantee isolation. Two concurrent calls hit the sa"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/production-ready-mcp-server-checklist/6a96aa4e7c0ddec1a5a798fe/comment/6a99b1a72d4d5a21d88dfa9a"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/production-ready-mcp-server-checklist/6a96aa4e7c0ddec1a5a798fe)

Comment [The Real Checklist for Turning an MCP Server Into a Production Service](https://hashnode.com/posts/production-ready-mcp-server-checklist/6a96aa4e7c0ddec1a5a798fe)

[Andrew](https://hashnode.com/@rizzdev)

[Sep 3](https://hashnode.com/posts/production-ready-mcp-server-checklist/6a96aa4e7c0ddec1a5a798fe/comment/6a99b1a72d4d5a21d88dfa9a)

Swapping in-memory state for a persistent store is exactly where I learned that MCP's tool contract doesn't guarantee isolation. Two concurrent calls hit the same resource, both saw stale data, both wrote, last write wins. The checklist skips the hard part