Commit Graph

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Dylan
094d7af8c3 [mcp-server] Populate notifications._meta with requestId (#1704)
## Summary
Per the [latest MCP
spec](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-06-18/basic#meta),
the `_meta` field is reserved for metadata. In the [Typescript
Schema](0695a497eb/schema/2025-06-18/schema.ts (L37-L40)),
`progressToken` is defined as a value to be attached to subsequent
notifications for that request.

The
[CallToolRequestParams](0695a497eb/schema/2025-06-18/schema.ts (L806-L817))
extends this definition but overwrites the params field. This ambiguity
makes our generated type definitions tricky, so I'm going to skip
`progressToken` field for now and just send back the `requestId`
instead.
 
In a future PR, we can clarify, update our `generate_mcp_types.py`
script, and update our progressToken logic accordingly.

## Testing
- [x] Added unit tests
- [x] Manually tested with mcp client
2025-07-28 13:32:09 -07:00
aibrahim-oai
5a0079fea2 Changing method in MCP notifications (#1684)
- Changing the codex/event type
2025-07-26 10:35:49 -07:00
Michael Bolin
018003e52f feat: leverage elicitations in the MCP server (#1623)
This updates the MCP server so that if it receives an
`ExecApprovalRequest` from the `Codex` session, it in turn sends an [MCP
elicitation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/draft/client/elicitation)
to the client to ask for the approval decision. Upon getting a response,
it forwards the client's decision via `Op::ExecApproval`.

Admittedly, we should be doing the same thing for
`ApplyPatchApprovalRequest`, but this is our first time experimenting
with elicitations, so I'm inclined to defer wiring that code path up
until we feel good about how this one works.

---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/1623).
* __->__ #1623
* #1622
* #1621
* #1620
2025-07-19 01:32:03 -04:00
Michael Bolin
11fd3123be chore: introduce OutgoingMessageSender (#1622)
Previous to this change, `MessageProcessor` had a
`tokio::sync::mpsc::Sender<JSONRPCMessage>` as an abstraction for server
code to send a message down to the MCP client. Because `Sender` is cheap
to `clone()`, it was straightforward to make it available to tasks
scheduled with `tokio::task::spawn()`.

This worked well when we were only sending notifications or responses
back down to the client, but we want to add support for sending
elicitations in #1623, which means that we need to be able to send
_requests_ to the client, and now we need a bit of centralization to
ensure all request ids are unique.

To that end, this PR introduces `OutgoingMessageSender`, which houses
the existing `Sender<OutgoingMessage>` as well as an `AtomicI64` to mint
out new, unique request ids. It has methods like `send_request()` and
`send_response()` so that callers do not have to deal with
`JSONRPCMessage` directly, as having to set the `jsonrpc` for each
message was a bit tedious (this cleans up `codex_tool_runner.rs` quite a
bit).

We do not have `OutgoingMessageSender` implement `Clone` because it is
important that the `AtomicI64` is shared across all users of
`OutgoingMessageSender`. As such, `Arc<OutgoingMessageSender>` must be
used instead, as it is frequently shared with new tokio tasks.

As part of this change, we update `message_processor.rs` to embrace
`await`, though we must be careful that no individual handler blocks the
main loop and prevents other messages from being handled.

---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/1622).
* #1623
* __->__ #1622
* #1621
* #1620
2025-07-19 00:30:56 -04:00