feat(server): add utility functions for CallToolResult #73
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
CallToolResult.Companion.ok and CallToolResult.Companion.error
|
@Mr3zee Could you take a look at my PR? Merge it, close it, or tell me what to do. |
|
OK. I'll be working on it quickly. |
e5l
approved these changes
Apr 29, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation and Context
I add two function in types.util.kt : CallToolResult.Companion.ok and CallToolResult.Companion.error.
I found it being a boilerplate code when writing
CallToolResult(listOf(TextContent(content))). So I think it's necessary to add a short hand for constructingCallToolResult.My solution is :
CallToolResult.ok(...)andCallToolResult.error(...).I added these two functions with document.
How Has This Been Tested?
It's just a wrapper of the constructor of
CallToolResult, so I think no test needed after viewing the code.Breaking Changes
This is not a breaking change.
Types of changes