[BUG] In 2.1.92 MCP tool names with "__" in them cause issues
Resolved 💬 2 comments Opened Apr 6, 2026 by mapalmer Closed May 18, 2026
Preflight Checklist
- [x] I have searched existing issues and this hasn't been reported yet
- [x] This is a single bug report (please file separate reports for different bugs)
- [x] I am using the latest version of Claude Code
What's Wrong?
We use "__" as a separator in our tool names. After updating to 2.1.92, things broke. I validated rolling back to 2.1.91 things were preserved, and after changing our separator to something else, 2.1.92 works great as well.
What Should Happen?
Not fail using my tool because I chose to use "__" as a separator. Or at least alert me to the fact that I can't use that.
Error Messages/Logs
Found it. Claude Code was updated today from 2.1.91 to 2.1.92:
2.1.90 (Apr 1)
2.1.91 (Apr 3) ← worked
2.1.92 (Apr 6) ← broke today, symlinked at 10:24
So yes, this is almost certainly a change in Claude Code 2.1.92 that rejects or filters MCP tool names containing __ (double underscore), since that's Claude Code's own internal mcp__<server>__<tool> delimiter.
Your options:
1. Report as a Claude Code bug — tool names containing __ should be valid MCP tool names. File at https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues
2. Workaround now — change tool_separator from "__" to "_" in config.toml and restart. This avoids the conflict while keeping the prefix feature
3. Verify by downgrading — you could switch back to 2.1.91 to confirm the regression: ln -sf /u/mpalmer/.local/share/claude/versions/2.1.91 /u/mpalmer/.local/bin/claude
I'd suggest doing both #1 and #2 — report the bug and change the separator as a practical fix. Want me to proceed with changing the separator?
Steps to Reproduce
- Create a tool with "__" in the name
- Profit
Claude Model
Opus
Is this a regression?
Yes, this worked in a previous version
Last Working Version
2.1.91
Claude Code Version
2.1.92
Platform
Anthropic API
Operating System
Ubuntu/Debian Linux
Terminal/Shell
Windows Terminal
Additional Information
_No response_
This issue has 2 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗