Rust code mcp integration#2441
Rust code mcp integration#2441sudeeptarlekar wants to merge 1 commit intoesrlabs:ai-integrationsfrom
Conversation
sudeeptarlekar
force-pushed
the
rust_code_mcp_integration
branch
3 times, most recently
from
2c40a6b to
7523e80
Compare
sudeeptarlekar
force-pushed
the
rust_code_mcp_integration
branch
from
03ac241 to
f8a335c
Compare
the-nick-fischer
left a comment
the-nick-fischer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me - only some small ideas
| pub struct McpChannelEndpoints { | ||
| pub prompt_tx: mpsc::Sender<Prompt>, | ||
| pub response_rx: mpsc::Receiver<Response>, | ||
| pub task_rx: mpsc::Receiver<Tasks>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Idea: Maybe we should rename all occurences of Task to Tool to match better to the MCP lingo. Essentially these messages are the forwarded tool calls, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Partially you are right, but if we look at it from other side, these are the tasks for Chipmunk. I can rename it if everybody agrees to be on same page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The "tasks" are currently not called anything on the chipmunk core side and we can decide what to call them.
I would vote to keep tool since it is already named like that in the specification on the MCP side.
Example flow:
[MCP client]: prompt ⇨ [LLM]: tool call ⇨ [MCP server]: mpsc "Tool" ⇨ [Chipmunk Core MCP API] mpsc ⇨ [Chipmunk Core] e.g. search "operation"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And then what will be the difference between tools that we are writing using Rmcp tool macro and object that we are sending to Chipmunk to process?
sudeeptarlekar
force-pushed
the
rust_code_mcp_integration
branch
3 times, most recently
from
e33eb8a to
f51b32a
Compare
sudeeptarlekar
force-pushed
the
rust_code_mcp_integration
branch
from
f51b32a to
119e817
Compare
3 participants
No description provided.