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

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

Đang mở
  • Có gì không ổn?
#256 9 bình luận 1 reaction 0 người được giao Xem trên GitHub

Maintainer thường phản hồi trong vòng 1 ngày

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
32/100
Loại issue
Tài liệu
Độ rõ ràng
Cần làm rõ
Mức độ hoạt động
Ít trao đổi
Công nghệ
javascript, web-dev
Lĩnh vực
api, developer-experience

Hướng nghiên cứu

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.

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

Mô tả

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.

Ngôn ngữ chính
Bikeshed
Star
4.7k
Fork
328
Merge trung bình
1 ngày 21 giờ
Pull request đã merge (30 ngày)
15

Chuẩn bị môi trường

Dự án này không cung cấp dev container, Dockerfile hay hướng dẫn đóng góp, nên bạn cần tự thiết lập môi trường: hãy bắt đầu từ README và xem hướng dẫn đóng góp lần đầu của chúng tôi để biết các bước chung.

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 webmachinelearning/webmcp

Tất cả issue của webmachinelearning/webmcp

Issue tương tự

Thêm issue về Backend & API Design

Nhận issue mới trong hộp thư của bạn

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