Added UI to provide additional _meta values #770
Conversation
|
I also added another section to the main UI so that it is possible to add meta data for all calls (like initialize, tools/list, ...): 
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like this!
Tested locally with prompts/list resources/list, resources/subscribe, resources/unsubscribe, resources/templates/list, completion/complete, resources/read, tools/call, and tools/list.
However,
Can we just make this "Metadata"? I understand it's "data for the _meta param" but Metadata is a word. Meta Data is weird.
And make MetaDataTab be MetadataTab.
| toolMeta?: Record<string, string>; | ||
| transport?: "sse" | "stdio" | "http"; | ||
| headers?: Record<string, string>; | ||
| metaData?: Record<string, string>; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As for metaData I can see it has been threaded through all the calls, but there are no tests. Can you add cli tests for the calls that pass something in metaData?
| )} | ||
| <div className="pb-4"> | ||
| <div className="flex items-center justify-between mb-2"> | ||
| <h4 className="text-sm font-semibold">Meta:</h4> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should say "Tool-specific Metadata:" to disambiguate between these pairs and those entered on the Metadata tab
| <div className="bg-gray-50 dark:bg-gray-900 p-3 rounded-lg"> | ||
| <div className="flex items-center justify-between mb-2"> | ||
| <h4 className="text-sm font-semibold">Meta:</h4> | ||
| <h4 className="text-sm font-semibold">Meta Schema:</h4> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure about this label. When _meta is attached to a tool, it isn't necessarily a "schema". The only thing the protocol says is:
The
_metaproperty/parameter is reserved by MCP to allow clients and servers to attach additional metadata to their interactions.
The tool has an inputSchema if it needs you to send specific values to it in the tool call. This seems like you are indicating that this is a schema for what the client should send in the _meta field of a tool call.
Is there consensus on this usage somewhere that supports this labeling?
| </TabsTrigger> | ||
| <TabsTrigger value="metadata"> | ||
| <Settings className="w-4 h-4 mr-2" /> | ||
| Meta Data |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Meta Data | |
| Metadata |
| {structuredResult._meta && ( | ||
| <div className="mb-4"> | ||
| <h5 className="font-semibold mb-2 text-sm">Meta:</h5> | ||
| <h5 className="font-semibold mb-2 text-sm">Meta Schema:</h5> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't a thing as far as I can tell. The spec only says
The _meta property/parameter is reserved by MCP to allow clients and servers to attach additional metadata to their interactions.
If there is consensus or examples somewhere that you can point to of the tool _meta being interpreted as a schema, please note.
Otherwise, there is the inputSchema that tools use to specify what they'd like the client to send in when invoking it.
cliffhall
added
the
waiting on submitter
3 participants
This PR adds a UI section inside the tools tab which enabled the user to provide extra key-value pairs for the
_metaobject. Fixes #559.UI:
Request:
Motivation and Context
Currently there is no way to provide additional
_metavalues in the UI.How Has This Been Tested?
I provided values in the UI and checked that they are sent in the request. Also, I added a test.
Breaking Changes
No
Types of changes
Checklist