`#[tool(description = …)]` accepts only a bare literal, while `#[doc]` and `#[schemars]` on the same items accept `include_str!` and `const` paths
Maintainers usually reply within 3 days
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 62/100
Research direction
The report names no implementation files or tests; begin by locating the #[tool] attribute parser and its validation for description. Add coverage for a &'static str const path and concat!, preserve literal behavior, and verify the generated description plus the documented or error behavior match the request.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Summary
description in #[tool] accepts only a bare string literal. Two attributes that sit on the very same items are more permissive: #[doc] on the function accepts include_str! and that value does reach the published description, and #[schemars(extend(…))] on the argument struct accepts const paths.
So a server can already source a tool's published text from outside the attribute — through #[doc], or through a literal handed in by a wrapper macro — just not through description, which is the field that names it. Accepting a const path and concat! there would remove the inconsistency.
This is an enhancement request, not a blocker: the workarounds below all work.
Version
rmcp 3.1.2, rustc 1.96.1, edition 2024.
What was measured
| form | result |
|---|---|
#[tool(description = "…")] |
works |
#[tool(description = my_crate::caps::TEXT)] |
error: Unexpected type \path`` |
#[tool(description = concat!("a", "b"))] |
error: Unexpected type \macro`` |
/// doc comment + #[tool] |
works — becomes the description |
#[doc = include_str!("text.md")] + #[tool] |
works — becomes the description |
#[schemars(extend("maximum" = MOST_STARTS_AT_ONCE))] on the args struct |
works — a const path, in the same attribute stack |
doc comment and description together |
description wins (no surprise here) |
macro_rules! wrapping the whole #[tool_router] impl |
works |
macro_rules! wrapping only the fn inside the impl |
compiles, registers nothing — filed separately |
The schemars row is the one that makes this feel like an oversight rather than a decision: a const is already acceptable one attribute away, for a value that is likewise baked into the published schema.
Why it matters on a larger surface
On a server with many tools the published text is an interface, and it usefully has two halves: a short one broadcast in tools/list before the first call, and a longer one fetched on demand. Ours measures 82 953 B of description across 66 tools, against a 13 590 B fetchable handbook — so keeping the split is worth real bytes, and it is far easier to keep the two halves honest when both can be declared together and the short one referenced from the attribute:
// what one would like to write
const GET_OR_CREATE_PROJECT: Capability = Capability {
broadcast: "…what prevents a wrong call…",
taught: "…the full explanation, fetched on demand…",
};
#[tool(description = GET_OR_CREATE_PROJECT.broadcast)]
Today that requires either moving the text into a file and using #[doc = include_str!(…)], or keeping a second copy plus a test comparing it to the literal.
Suggested change
Accept in description what neighbouring attributes already accept: a path to a const &'static str, and concat!. The generated code stores a &'static str either way.
If the literal is required because the value is needed during macro expansion, a line saying so in the docs — and an error message reading "only a string literal is accepted here" rather than naming the token type — would save the next person the experiment.
What this report does not establish
It does not claim the current behaviour is wrong, only that it is inconsistent with #[doc] and #[schemars] on the same items. name was not tested against a non-literal; only description was.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 4k
- Forks
- 654
- Avg merge
- 4d 2h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 40
Getting set up
Starts the project's dev container in your browser, under your own GitHub account.
- No Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
- No pull request template
- Read the contributing guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk
-
P3 question T-documentation T-enhancement
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 86/100
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1155 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 3 days
-
bug P1 ready for work T-transport
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1325 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 3 days
-
bug P1 ready for work T-transport
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 35/100
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1321 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 3 days
-
Bound pre-lifecycle bootstrap attempts in server initializationPossibly taken @DaleSeo claimed this 3 days ago. Openenhancement P2 T-service T-transport
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1315 · 1 assignee ·
Maintainers usually reply within 3 days
-
ProgressDispatcher: a slow progress subscriber blocks subscribe() and delivery for other tokensOpenbug P1 ready for work T-handler
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 25/100
modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk#1312 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 3 days
All issues in modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 80/100
Devolutions/picky-rs#546 · 1 comment ·
Maintainers usually reply within 3 days
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 74/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
enhancement
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
zcashlabs/thus-spoke-zakura#153 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 79/100
topgrade-rs/topgrade#2395 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
app bug windows-os
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 67/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day