toolgroups -> tools

[ehhuang]

I'm thinking of changing toolgroups to tools in AgentConfig. Why? It's another concept for users to learn, and I found this confusing and not very useful:

1. The model itself doesn't make use of the groups concept.
2. User can instead get the tools from a group with list_tools, then pass the list in to the AgentConfig. This allows the user to be more explicit about what tools they want to expose, e.g. the builtin::rag toolgroup has two tools: query_from_memory, and insert_to_memory. For a RAG task, I don't want to have insert_to_memory confuse the model.
3. Having just tools makes the available tools more transparent, e.g. I don't know what tool_name I can refer to in my instructions when I use a toolgroup, so might as well make this explicit.

[ashwinb]

Yeah I think toolgroups as a user facing concept haven’t worked. How do you think we should handle the MCP server concept? That’s the main reason we introduced this abstraction.

[ashwinb]

I think one thing we wanted to enable is to enable addressing MCP tools on the server so you could get server side tool execution done via MCP. Otherwise the simpler thing is to do all of this client side.

[ehhuang]

For MCP, users can do

fs_tools = client.tools.list(toolgroup_id="mcp::filesystem")
tools = fs_tools + other_tools ...
# pass tools to AgentConfig

or pass explicit tools from mcp

tools = ["mcp::filesystem::read_file", <other tools>]

[ehhuang]

#178