Hacktoberfest 2026：メンテナが10月に向けて印を付けた、オープンで初心者向けの issue。 Hacktoberfest の issue を見る

Origin Trial research note: observations on tool exposure, validation, and context cost

オープン
  • 何か問題がありますか？
#256 コメント 9 件 リアクション 1 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
4/5
見積もり時間
3〜5日
初心者へのやさしさ
32/100
issue の種類
ドキュメント
明瞭さ
説明が足りない
活発さ
静か
技術スタック
javascript, web-dev
領域
api, developer-experience

調査の方向性

Read the issue’s listed experiments and linked article and journal, then compare the observations with the README questions named in the issue. The issue asks whether to contribute evidence to an existing discussion but does not identify a specific issue or define a deliverable; done would require maintainers to select a focused, reproducible evidence package.

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

Hello WebMCP maintainers,

I have followed this project since its early development and wanted to contribute only after understanding its architecture more carefully.

My initial idea was to propose a Context Continuity Package (CCP) that could help agents resume work across local and browser surfaces. After auditing the repository, activating the Origin Trial, building an external laboratory, and testing the hypothesis across several agent surfaces, I concluded that my original proposal was aimed at the wrong layer.

The experiment suggests that WebMCP should expose page capabilities, while continuity, retention, compaction, and forgetting remain responsibilities of the agent harness or product.

I am therefore not reporting a bug, requesting a new memory primitive, or proposing code in this issue. I am sharing the resulting observations because they appear relevant to several questions currently listed in the README.

What the experiment covered
  • Origin Trial activation with the experimental flag returned to its default state.
  • A read-only WebMCP tool returning a bounded, structured continuity packet.
  • Input rejection, output validation, document lifecycle, navigation, cancellation, deregistration, BFCache, origin boundaries, and hostile-but-valid content.
  • A matrix of 100 trial slots across Codex, ChatGPT/Chrome, Antigravity, and Edge.
  • Fifty ablation trials examining which fields improved decisions.
  • An Antigravity experiment separating the visible cost of continuity, tool definitions, capability discovery, and tool results.
Results that corrected my hypothesis
  • Manual CCP recovered the expected next action in 19/20 completed trials, compared with 14/20 for a byte-matched free summary and 19/20 for full history.
  • In completed Antigravity trials, CCP reduced average visible context by approximately 27% in bytes and 25.1% in proxy tokens.
  • Bounded tool results reduced a different component by approximately 21.2% in bytes and 19.6% in proxy tokens.
  • The theoretical combined reduction exceeded 50%, but progressive discovery did not pass the native pilot. The 50% operational target is therefore not demonstrated.
  • Native discovery was irregular. Antigravity produced two server-confirmed invocations in five attempts, only one of which produced a usable resumption report. The observed ChatGPT/Chrome and Edge configurations produced no confirmed native invocation.
  • Structural validation and same-origin exposure reduced some risks but did not establish truth, trustworthy provenance, or safe intent.
Connections with the current open questions

The experiment may provide implementation evidence relevant to:

  • Cross-document tool responses: navigation, cancellation, document destruction, deregistration, and BFCache behavior.
  • Built-in agent exposure: separating API presence, registration, exposure, discovery, invocation, and actual use.
  • Input/output validation and outputSchema: strict empty-input enforcement, bounded structured output, stable rejection codes, and the limitations of schema validity.
  • Skills integration: evidence that higher-level continuity and coordination belong primarily to the harness rather than to a WebMCP memory layer.
  • Streaming and bounded responses: evidence that response size materially affects visible context, without yet establishing a streaming contract.
  • Progress and observability: timeouts and discovery failures showed the importance of identifying exactly where an invocation chain stops.
Short and long versions
Question for the maintainers

Would any of these observations be useful in an existing open issue—particularly around built-in-agent exposure, schema validation, cross-document lifecycle, or tool-discovery cost?

If so, I would be happy to extract a small, focused, reproducible evidence package for the most relevant discussion. I do not want to introduce a broader proposal where a narrower contribution would be more useful.

Thank you for the work on WebMCP and for making these design questions visible.

主要言語
Bikeshed
スター
4.7k
フォーク
328
平均マージ
2日 15時間
マージ済み PR（30日）
16

環境構築

このプロジェクトには開発コンテナ、Dockerfile、コントリビューションガイドがありません。まず README を読み、一般的な手順ははじめてのコントリビューションガイドを参照してください。

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

webmachinelearning/webmcp のほかの issue

webmachinelearning/webmcp の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Backend & API Design の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。