{{ message }}
SEP-3279 - Negotiated Tool Result Variants - #3279
Open
krubenok wants to merge 5 commits into
Open
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.

This SEP introduces negotiated tool result variants. Tools advertise supported output representations, clients select the outputs needed for each call, and hosts route each result by audience.
Motivation and Context
The current relationship between content and structuredContent is ambiguous. Clients handle them differently, which can duplicate model context, discard structured results, or route data to the wrong consumer.
This proposal adds explicit audiences and request-time selection for assistant, user, programmatic, and extension outputs. It also gives each structured variant its own schema.
How Has This Been Tested?
This PR is a specification proposal only. The SEP includes key details of how a reference implementation and conformance testing plan covering selection, routing, schema validation, errors, MCP Apps, and legacy compatibility could work. Based on feedback, a full implementation and testing will follow.
Breaking Changes
Yes, for protocol the next version (assumed to be
2026-12-01) and later:Types of changes
Checklist
Additional context
This follows maintainer feedback on SEP-2200 to replace implicit result interpretation with client-selected polymorphic results. The proposal targets the 2026-12-01 protocol revision and is seeking a sponsor.