feature:tool result add command type #468
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WalkthroughA new struct type Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
✨ Finishing Touches
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
mcp/types.go (1)
896-901: Use consistent Go type convention for better codebase uniformity.The
Paramsfield usesmap[string]interface{}while other similar fields in the codebase usemap[string]any(e.g., lines 129, 172, 234). For consistency with modern Go conventions, consider usingmap[string]any.type CommandContent struct { Type string `json:"type"` // must be "command" Command string `json:"command"` // the command name - Params map[string]interface{} `json:"params,omitempty"` // optional parameters + Params map[string]any `json:"params,omitempty"` // optional parameters }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
mcp/types.go(1 hunks)mcp/utils.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (2)
mcp/utils.go (3)
Learnt from: floatingIce91
PR: mark3labs/mcp-go#401
File: server/server.go:1082-1092
Timestamp: 2025-06-23T11:10:42.948Z
Learning: In Go MCP server, ServerTool.Tool field is only used for tool listing and indexing, not for tool execution or middleware. During handleToolCall, only the Handler field is used, so dynamic tools don't need the Tool field populated.
Learnt from: xinwo
PR: mark3labs/mcp-go#35
File: mcp/tools.go:107-137
Timestamp: 2025-03-04T06:59:43.882Z
Learning: Tool responses from the MCP server shouldn't contain RawInputSchema, which is why the UnmarshalJSON method for the Tool struct is implemented to handle only the structured InputSchema format.
Learnt from: lariel-fernandes
PR: mark3labs/mcp-go#428
File: www/docs/pages/servers/prompts.mdx:218-234
Timestamp: 2025-06-20T20:39:51.870Z
Learning: In the mcp-go library, the GetPromptParams.Arguments field is of type map[string]string, not map[string]interface{}, so direct string access without type assertions is safe and correct.
mcp/types.go (2)
Learnt from: ezynda3
PR: mark3labs/mcp-go#461
File: server/sampling.go:22-26
Timestamp: 2025-06-30T07:13:16.959Z
Learning: In the mark3labs/mcp-go project, the MCPServer.capabilities field is a struct value (serverCapabilities), not a pointer, so it cannot be nil and doesn't require nil checking. Only pointer fields within the capabilities struct should be checked for nil.
Learnt from: lariel-fernandes
PR: mark3labs/mcp-go#428
File: www/docs/pages/servers/prompts.mdx:218-234
Timestamp: 2025-06-20T20:39:51.870Z
Learning: In the mcp-go library, the GetPromptParams.Arguments field is of type map[string]string, not map[string]interface{}, so direct string access without type assertions is safe and correct.
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (1)
mcp/utils.go (2)
mcp/tools.go (1)
CallToolResult(36-43)mcp/types.go (4)
Content(827-829)CommandContent(897-901)CommandContent(903-903)Params(162-162)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
mcp/types.go (1)
903-903: LGTM! Proper Content interface implementation.The
isContent()method correctly implements theContentinterface, allowingCommandContentto be used in content arrays.mcp/utils.go (1)
358-367: LGTM! Function follows established patterns correctly.The function implementation correctly creates a
CallToolResultwithCommandContent, following the same pattern as otherNewToolResult*functions in the codebase.
|
@mathiasXie can you explain why this feature is needed or how it should be used? |
ezynda3
added
the
status: needs submitter response
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Fixes #<issue_number> (if applicable)
Type of Change
Checklist
MCP Spec Compliance
Additional Information
Summary by CodeRabbit