Skip to content

fix: tool annotation #165

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 17, 2025
Merged

Conversation

dugenkui03
Copy link
Collaborator

@dugenkui03 dugenkui03 commented Apr 17, 2025

fix for client can not get tool annotation, and add some tests

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Improved validation and display of tool annotation metadata in tool listings.
  • Tests
    • Enhanced test coverage to verify correct handling and output of tool annotations.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 17, 2025

Walkthrough

The changes introduce enhancements to the MCP client's test suite by adding and validating tool annotations, including multiple hint fields. The test now asserts the presence and correctness of annotation metadata in tool definitions. Additionally, the Tool struct's MarshalJSON method is updated to include the Annotations field in its JSON output, ensuring that tool annotations are serialized alongside other tool properties.

Changes

Files/Groups Change Summary
client/sse_test.go Enhanced tests to add tool annotations with multiple hint fields, updated assertions to validate annotations.
mcp/tools.go Modified Tool.MarshalJSON to include the Annotations field in the serialized JSON output.

Possibly related PRs

  • new feat: tool annotation #158: Adds annotation functionality to the Tool struct, which is further extended in this PR by enabling JSON serialization of the Annotations field.

Tip

⚡💬 Agentic Chat (Pro Plan, General Availability)
  • We're introducing multi-step agentic chat in review comments and issue comments, within and outside of PR's. This feature enhances review and issue discussions with the CodeRabbit agentic chat by enabling advanced interactions, including the ability to create pull requests directly from comments and add commits to existing pull requests.
✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings

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.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
client/sse_test.go (1)

109-119: The annotation verification test could be improved with better error messages.

The test correctly verifies all annotation fields, but the error message is generic and doesn't indicate which specific annotation field failed to match the expected value.

Consider improving the error message to specify which annotation field failed:

-			t.Errorf("The annotations of the tools are invalid")
+			t.Errorf("Tool annotations mismatch: got Title=%q, ReadOnlyHint=%v, DestructiveHint=%v, IdempotentHint=%v, OpenWorldHint=%v",
+				testToolAnnotations.Title, 
+				testToolAnnotations.ReadOnlyHint,
+				testToolAnnotations.DestructiveHint,
+				testToolAnnotations.IdempotentHint,
+				testToolAnnotations.OpenWorldHint)
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 37ac814 and 53e329a.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • client/sse_test.go (2 hunks)
  • mcp/tools.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (1)
client/sse_test.go (1)
mcp/tools.go (3)
  • WithToolAnnotation (193-197)
  • ToolAnnotation (116-127)
  • Title (221-225)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
mcp/tools.go (1)

105-105: Properly includes annotations field in JSON output.

This change ensures that the Annotations field of a Tool is included in the JSON output during marshaling, which is necessary for serializing tool annotation metadata. This is a critical fix to match the intended behavior.

client/sse_test.go (2)

28-34: LGTM! The tool annotation is properly configured with multiple hint fields.

The test now correctly initializes a tool with specific annotation metadata that will be used to verify the serialization behavior.


105-105: Good improvement to capture the ListTools result for validation.

Assigning the result to toolListResult enables subsequent validation of the tool annotations.

if toolListResult == nil || len((*toolListResult).Tools) == 0 {
t.Errorf("Expected one tool")
}
testToolAnnotations := (*toolListResult).Tools[0].Annotations
Copy link
Contributor

@StarpTech StarpTech Apr 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What prevents you from using proper asserts to check for all the values?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Align with the previous coding style.

Copy link
Contributor

@StarpTech StarpTech Apr 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it is bad practice. On error you don't know what is wrong but understand your standpoint.

@ezynda3 ezynda3 merged commit 71b910b into mark3labs:main Apr 17, 2025
2 checks passed
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.

3 participants
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy