Hacktoberfest 2026: những issue maintainer đã đánh dấu cho tháng Mười, đang mở và phù hợp người mới. Xem issue Hacktoberfest

Proposal: optional authenticated MCP web-evidence workflow (Baizhi)

Đang mở
  • Có gì không ổn?
#685 0 bình luận 0 reaction 0 người được giao Xem trên GitHub

Chưa có ai nhận issue này.

Đánh giá

Độ khó
4/5
Thời gian dự kiến
3-5 ngày
Mức phù hợp với người mới
35/100
Loại issue
Tính năng
Độ rõ ràng
Khá rõ ràng
Mức độ hoạt động
Sôi nổi
Công nghệ
python, yaml
Lĩnh vực
ai, backend

Hướng nghiên cứu

Read yaml_instance/deep_research_v1.yaml and the existing mcp_remote implementation, then inspect the workflow-list and Launch entry points. The proposal asks whether this credential-specific workflow is in scope, not for a defined implementation; first seek maintainer guidance on location and validation. If approved, done would include the optional YAML and English/Chinese setup instructions, plus the proposed host, credential, error, cleanup, and exposure checks.

Do mô hình lập chỉ mục viết ra từ nội dung của issue.

Mô tả

Disclosure: this is a vendor-affiliated proposal for Baizhi Cloud. I would like to check whether a small, optional DevAll 2.0 workflow is within the project's contribution scope.

For users who already have a Baizhi account, the proposed workflow would collect public web evidence and produce a short, source-linked comparison or fact-check. The current deep_research_v1.yaml uses the in-repo web functions, whose search and page-reading implementations use Serper and Jina. This would be an alternative using the user's existing Baizhi credentials, rather than a replacement for that workflow or a new vendor-specific Python provider.

The proposed addition is yaml_instance/web_evidence_baizhi.yaml, with short English and Chinese setup instructions:

  • An evidence-collection agent actually binds remote MCP tools for search, page reading and structured extraction. It should retain source URLs, distinguish quoted page evidence from inference, and report unavailable information instead of inventing it.
  • A separate review agent checks the collected evidence and produces the final answer; it does not need another remote tool binding.
  • The YAML contains environment-variable references only. Selecting and launching this workflow is optional; existing workflows remain usable without a Baizhi key.

The connection fragment for the collection agent would reuse the existing implementation:

tooling:
  - type: mcp_remote
    prefix: baizhi
    config:
      server: https://agent-toolkit.app.baizhi.cloud/mcp
      headers:
        Authorization: Bearer ${BAIZHI_API_KEY}
      timeout: 30

The public integration documentation documents Streamable HTTP/Bearer authentication and websearch_search, web_scrape, and web_extract. Actual argument schemas would come from MCP discovery. A least-privilege key should be configured by the operator, outside the committed workflow. This is not a claim that prompts restrict server-side permissions.

A Baizhi account and the user's own key are required; calls may consume paid credits. Tool arguments go to the hosted service and returned evidence may go to the configured model. The public repository contains integration materials, not the hosted backend source. The proposed example is for public, non-sensitive research inputs.

I have statically traced the current main configuration interpolation, Streamable HTTP headers, tool discovery/call and result handling, and the workflow-list/Launch entry. I have not run a ChatDev host/GUI or live Baizhi/model test. Before any implementation PR, verification would need to cover the actual host with a synthetic MCP service, missing/invalid credentials, errors and cleanup, and inspect logs/artifacts for credential exposure. No compatibility or production-success claim is intended at this stage.

Would this optional, credential-specific workflow be useful and acceptable in yaml_instance/, or would you prefer another contribution location? I would also welcome guidance on the expected validation for such a workflow. I noted the functional naming guidance in #555, the requirement for real crawling/tool execution in #561, and the preference for reusing generic abstractions in #594; the proposal follows those boundaries.

Ngôn ngữ chính
Python
Star
34.5k
Fork
4.3k
Không có pull request nào được merge trong 30 ngày

Chuẩn bị môi trường

  • Có Dockerfile hoặc tệp Docker Compose
  • Không có mẫu pull request
  • Không có hướng dẫn đóng góp

Bắt đầu từ đâu

  1. Đọc hết issue, rồi đọc hướng dẫn đóng góp của dự án.
  2. Bình luận trên issue rằng bạn sẽ nhận — tránh hai người làm cùng một việc.
  3. Fork repository và làm thay đổi trên một nhánh.
  4. Mở pull request có tham chiếu số hiệu của issue.

Issue khác của OpenBMB/ChatDev

Tất cả issue của OpenBMB/ChatDev

Issue tương tự

Thêm issue về Python

Nhận issue mới trong hộp thư của bạn

Bản tóm tắt ngắn những issue GitHub phù hợp với người mới.