Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

Reserve an extension member on tools and results, like MCP's `_meta`

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#354 0 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
35/100
Tipo di issue
Funzionalità
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Attiva
Stack tecnologico
javascript
Ambito
api

Direzione di ricerca

Start by reading the ModelContextTool and RegisteredTool definitions in the WebMCP specification, then review the linked discussions #9, #41, #73, #255, #271, and #282 for related decisions. The issue proposes a new extension point but leaves its name, size limits, and filtering behavior open; done would require resolving those design questions and updating the spec.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

MCP lets tools, results and requests carry extra data in a _meta member. Specs and products built on MCP have used it to try ideas without waiting for the core spec: links from a tool to a UI resource, tool visibility, short status strings while a tool runs, vendor extensions. WebMCP's ModelContextTool and ToolAnnotations are fixed sets of members, so an experiment has nowhere to go except new annotations in the core spec.

WebMCP is young and still being shaped by implementers in the origin trial. Experiments that need a field (a display string for a running tool, a pointer to a longer description, a grouping hint such as #255 or #271) currently need a spec change first, or end up in the description text where agents may read them as instructions. #41 already mentions deferring annotations and _meta on image results, so the question has come up. When an experiment works it can be promoted to a real member with real semantics, which MCP has done repeatedly.

What I'd propose is a reserved, optional member (name up for discussion) on ModelContextTool and RegisteredTool, and on results if they become typed (#9, #41, #282). User agents ignore it. Keys should be prefixed (reverse-DNS or a short vendor name) to avoid collisions, as MCP recommends for _meta. The data comes from the page, so agents should treat it as untrusted and shouldn't show it to a model unless they choose to; it's not a place for instructions. And it's carried to extensions and agents like the rest of the descriptor. No new behaviour and no new capabilities, only a place for data that the platform doesn't interpret.

Two open questions: whether size limits should apply (see #73 on input lengths), and whether exposedTo filtering applies to the whole descriptor, which I'd assume.

Lingua principale
Bikeshed
Stelle
4.7k
Fork
328
Merge medio
2g 15h
PR unite (30g)
16

Preparare l'ambiente

Questo progetto non fornisce container di sviluppo, Dockerfile né guida per i contributori, quindi l'ambiente è a tuo carico: parti dal suo README e consulta la nostra guida al primo contributo per i passaggi generali.

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di webmachinelearning/webmcp

Tutte le issue di webmachinelearning/webmcp

Issue simili

Altre issue su Backend & API Design

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.