feat: add tool execution properties to Tool by devcrocod · Pull Request #567 · modelcontextprotocol/kotlin-sdk

devcrocod · 2026-02-26T22:05:19Z

closes #543

How Has This Been Tested?

unit

Breaking Changes

binary compatibility in the Tool class

Types of changes

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
Documentation update

Checklist

I have read the MCP Documentation
My code follows the repository's style guidelines
New and existing tests pass locally
I have added appropriate error handling
I have added or updated documentation as needed

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds support for MCP “tool execution” metadata in the Kotlin SDK so tools can advertise task-augmented execution capabilities (issue #543).

Changes:

Introduces ToolExecution + TaskSupport and adds optional execution to Tool.
Extends Server.addTool(...) overload to accept execution and pass it into the registered Tool.
Adds serialization/deserialization unit tests and updates API dumps (plus adds detekt baseline files).

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
kotlin-sdk-server/src/commonMain/kotlin/io/modelcontextprotocol/kotlin/sdk/server/Server.kt	Extends `addTool` overload to accept/pass `ToolExecution`.
kotlin-sdk-server/api/kotlin-sdk-server.api	Updates public API surface for the new `addTool` signature.
kotlin-sdk-core/src/commonTest/kotlin/io/modelcontextprotocol/kotlin/sdk/types/ToolsTest.kt	Adds unit tests for `ToolExecution` and `Tool.execution` JSON round-trips.
kotlin-sdk-core/src/commonMain/kotlin/io/modelcontextprotocol/kotlin/sdk/types/tools.kt	Adds `Tool.execution`, new `ToolExecution` model, and `TaskSupport` enum.
kotlin-sdk-core/src/commonMain/kotlin/io/modelcontextprotocol/kotlin/sdk/types.kt	Adjusts deprecated `Tool(...)` wrapper callsite to use named `meta` argument.
kotlin-sdk-core/detekt-baseline-test.xml	Adds a detekt baseline for tests (currently appears unused/stale).
kotlin-sdk-core/detekt-baseline-commonTestSourceSet.xml	Adds a detekt baseline for commonTest source set (currently appears unused).
kotlin-sdk-core/api/kotlin-sdk-core.api	Updates public API surface for new types and `Tool` signature changes.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

kpavlov

Thank you @devcrocod !

Almost perfect, but let's address @copilot findings, especially breaking changes, KDoc discrepancy and baseline cleanup suggestions.
Let's not inflate detekt baseline files: they should only shrink.
Let's maintain PR description accurate and informative.

kpavlov · 2026-03-01T08:56:55Z

+<SmellBaseline>
+  <ManuallySuppressedIssues/>
+  <CurrentIssues>
+    <ID>LargeClass:ToolsTest.kt:ToolsTest</ID>


This is a legitimate finding. Let's split ToolsTest for maintainability instead of suppressing warning.

In general, let's not add anything to baselines. Only remove. In exceptional cases let's use @Suppress annotation in place

currently, our approach is to group unit tests by entity for types. Splitting ToolsTest into separate files would increase complexity and make the structure less clear

ideally, we should avoid adding @Suppress annotations from third-party tools into the source code. For now, I've added this to baseline, which is also not the best solution. If you see a better approach, I'd appreciate your suggestion

This method might not be the best fit when the group gets too large.

Splitting ToolsTest into separate files would increase complexity and make the structure less clear

Actually, it is often the other way around. Smaller files are usually easier to understand and keep up with. This one is over 500 lines and checks out several classes. It could be broken down into smaller pieces, so let’s do that.

Ideally, we should avoid situations where @Suppress is needed.

There is one exception: when we are clearly explaining our design choice to NOT follow best practices. We can add a comment to clarify this. If it is in the code, it is easy to see whether it is a false positive or not. But if it is in the baseline file, it’s separate from the code.

Let’s focus on removing baseline files rather than adding more to them.

I’m afraid I won’t be able to give +1 on this.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

codecov-commenter · 2026-03-02T19:36:18Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 88.88889% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../io/modelcontextprotocol/kotlin/sdk/types/tools.kt	85.71%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

kpavlov

@devcrocod, ok please check the #582 and consider removing unnecessary baselines

- Updated `detekt.yml` to exclude test folders from `EmptyFunctionBlock`, `LargeClass`, and `LongMethod` checks. - Cleanup detekt-baseline files. - Simplified `.idea/detekt.xml`. ## Motivation and Context To reduce linter noise and reduce tension ## How Has This Been Tested? `./gradlew detekt` ## Breaking Changes No ## Types of changes - [x] Build tool/ci update ## Checklist  - [x] I have read the [MCP Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io) - [x] My code follows the repository's style guidelines - [x] New and existing tests pass locally - [ ] I have added appropriate error handling - [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed ## Additional context #567

…on and update related tests

…tion`

kpavlov

LGTM

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review is ineligible. To be eligible to request a review, you need a paid Copilot license, or your organization must enable Copilot code review.

devcrocod marked this pull request as ready for review February 26, 2026 22:24

devcrocod requested review from Copilot, e5l and kpavlov February 26, 2026 22:24

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of devcrocod February 26, 2026 22:24 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

e5l previously approved these changes Feb 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

kpavlov suggested changes Mar 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

devcrocod mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2026

feat: add tasks models #566

Merged

9 tasks

devcrocod force-pushed the devcrocod/tool-execution-in-tool-def branch from 29e3d1b to 1cc2a16 Compare March 2, 2026 18:58

devcrocod requested review from Copilot and kpavlov March 2, 2026 18:58

devcrocod dismissed e5l’s stale review via d506636 March 2, 2026 18:59

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of devcrocod March 2, 2026 18:59 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

kpavlov mentioned this pull request Mar 3, 2026

chore: relax Detekt rules for tests #582

Merged

6 tasks

kpavlov previously approved these changes Mar 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

kpavlov mentioned this pull request Mar 3, 2026

Align Kotlin SDK with 2025-11-25 Specification #406

Closed

61 tasks

devcrocod added 3 commits March 10, 2026 12:36

Add support for tool execution properties with task-augmented executi…

53a4eec

…on and update related tests

Clarify default behavior for taskSupport when omitted in `ToolExecu…

4cc2258

…tion`

Remove obsolete Detekt baseline files from the project

c84eeba

devcrocod dismissed kpavlov’s stale review via c84eeba March 10, 2026 11:38

devcrocod force-pushed the devcrocod/tool-execution-in-tool-def branch from d506636 to c84eeba Compare March 10, 2026 11:38

devcrocod requested a review from kpavlov March 10, 2026 12:03

kpavlov approved these changes Mar 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into devcrocod/tool-execution-in-tool-def

95fc11b

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 10, 2026 16:17

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 10, 2026

devcrocod merged commit 338f948 into main Mar 10, 2026
18 of 19 checks passed

devcrocod deleted the devcrocod/tool-execution-in-tool-def branch March 10, 2026 19:05

kpavlov mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

Implement SEP-1686: Tasks #421

Closed

Uh oh!

Conversation

devcrocod commented Feb 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

Types of changes

Checklist

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kpavlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kpavlov Mar 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

devcrocod Mar 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kpavlov Mar 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kpavlov Mar 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Mar 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

kpavlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kpavlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

devcrocod commented Feb 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Mar 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading