-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
feat(mcp): capture model identifiers #927
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
lucasheriques
wants to merge
2
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
codex/mcp-model-client-metadata
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| pypi/posthog: minor | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Capture MCP model identifiers from client metadata or an SDK-owned self-report field. | ||
| Model capture remains opt-in, preserves application-owned fields across repeated tool listings, and keeps strict input validation when adding analytics fields. |
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note
🤖 Automated comment by QA Swarm — not written by a human
[router] 🟡 MEDIUM
Removing the
additionalProperties: falsestripping here is correct, and I verified it rather than assuming: a property added topropertiesstays valid underadditionalProperties: false, and the newDraft202012Validatortest plus the extended low-level cache-rebuild test both pin it. The SDK should not be silently weakening a schema constraint the tool author declared.The concern is scope, not correctness. Neither this file nor
_conversation_id.pywas touched by this PR's first commit, andcontextinjection is on by default — so this reaches everyinstrument()user, not only those who opt intocapture_model.It is also a change to released behavior. The stripping came in with #888 and shipped in v7.43.1; the package is now on 7.47.1. So a tool author who declared
additionalProperties: falseand has had extra arguments accepted since v7.43.1 will start seeing those calls rejected once this ships.The changeset covers it in one clause — "keeps strict input validation when adding analytics fields" — which reads as a property of the new opt-in feature rather than something every existing user gets. Worth splitting into its own commit with its own changeset entry, or at least rewording the changeset to say plainly what existing users will notice.