feat(js/core): Add dynamic-action-provider support #3598
Conversation
js/plugins/mcp/src/index.ts
Outdated
| ai.defineDynamicActionProvider(options.name, async () => ({ | ||
| tool: await mcpHost.getActiveTools(ai), | ||
| resource: await mcpHost.getActiveResources(ai), | ||
| })); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a strong opinion but looks like the delta between the old and new APIs is only these 4 lines.
Do we need to deprecate the old API instead of providing dynamic actions as an add on?
createMcpHost({...}).withDynamicActions({ai})
This is not consistent with our defineBlah({ai, ...}) APIs but it will avoid deprecating the old one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It requires the ai parameter and it also makes the name field of the options a required field. It's a breaking change to createMcpHost.
| (await registry.lookupAction(`/tool/${name}`)) || | ||
| (await registry.lookupAction(`/prompt/${name}`)); | ||
| (await registry.lookupAction(`/prompt/${name}`)) || | ||
| (await registry.lookupAction(`/dynamic-action-provider/${name}`)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would we allow specifying tool names that are only resolvable through DAP without using the DAP ref syntax?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. I don't think that's a good idea. You might have a /dynamic-action-provider/myDap1:tool/fs/read_file that is configured to read stuff from directory A and another one /dynamic-action-provider/myDap2:tool/fs/read_file that is configured to read stuff from directory B. If you just say /tool/fs/read_file it's ambiguous (and we don't know where to find it).
Checklist (if applicable):