Skip to content

Implement selective tools activation in gptel-mcp-connect#1252

Open
vspinu wants to merge 1 commit intokarthink:masterfrom
vspinu:allow-mcp-tool-unactivation
Open

Implement selective tools activation in gptel-mcp-connect#1252
vspinu wants to merge 1 commit intokarthink:masterfrom
vspinu:allow-mcp-tool-unactivation

Conversation

@vspinu
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@vspinu vspinu commented Feb 17, 2026

This MR allows registration of MCP servers with selective tool activation. Currently one can only activate all tools for a server. My personal use case is to make all MCPs available to gptel, but don't activate any of them globally.

I am also adding a short line to the README as it take a bit of digging currently to figure this server initialization part.

@vspinu vspinu force-pushed the allow-mcp-tool-unactivation branch from 973c689 to e705030 Compare February 17, 2026 22:30
@karthink
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thanks for the PR @vspinu! Busy with some features, will take a look soon.

@karthink karthink force-pushed the allow-mcp-tool-unactivation branch from e705030 to 43c1518 Compare March 21, 2026 18:09
@karthink
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

@vspinu Reviewing this PR now.

  1. I take it there is no change to the interactive behavior of gptel-mcp-connect?
  2. Why the specification ("server-name" . t)? Aren't the cases covered by "server-name" and ("server-name" "tool1" "tool2" ...)?

@vspinu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

vspinu commented Mar 25, 2026

@karthink

  1. Yes, indeed. Only programatic usage is changed
  2. It's for consistency ("server-name . nil) - no tools activated, ("server" . t) - all tools activated, ("server" 'a 'b) only tools. Such consistency is good for programatic usage, for instance a variable ("server" somevar), but it's a minor. I am fine either way. I can surely remove it if you don't like it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants