[PR #757] [CLOSED] fix(mcp): recognize implicit form elicitation capability #2219

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-10-16 21:15:49 +00:00 by bsakaguchi · 0 comments

bsakaguchi commented

2026-10-16 21:15:49 +00:00

Owner

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/757
Author: @rudycelekli
Created: 10/6/2026
Status: ❌ Closed

Base: main ← Head: fix/mcp-implicit-elicitation-20261006

📝 Commits (1)

257d164 fix(mcp): recognize implicit form elicitation capability

📊 Changes

2 files changed (+63 additions, -3 deletions)

View changed files

📝 src/server/mcpClientMetadata.ts (+7 -3)
➕ tests/boundary/mcp/clientCapabilities.test.ts (+56 -0)

📄 Description

Problem

binary_session reports elicitation_form: false when a request declares elicitation: {}. The MCP protocol defines that declaration as implicit form-mode support. This makes REA's reported client capabilities disagree with the negotiated request and the SDK's compatibility behavior.

Change

Recognize implicit form support only when an elicitation capability object is present. A missing capability still reports no support; explicit URL-only declarations remain URL-only. The projection continues to use request-scoped metadata.

Verification

Actual pinned SDK 2.3.1 Client and InMemoryTransport calling REA's registered binary_session tool: before the fix, the implicit-form case failed while explicit form, URL-only, and absent-capability controls passed.
After the fix: five capability cases plus the four existing server-identity tests passed (9 total).
npm run check passed all five tasks, with 124 existing lint warnings and no errors.
No tool schema, provider behavior, packaging, or Hopper/Ghidra support claim changes.

Protocol reference: MCP elicitation capabilities.

AI assistance: Codex investigated, implemented, and tested this change; an independent agent reviewed the source and protocol interpretation.

_{🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.}

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/757 **Author:** [@rudycelekli](https://github.com/rudycelekli) **Created:** 10/6/2026 **Status:** ❌ Closed **Base:** `main` ← **Head:** `fix/mcp-implicit-elicitation-20261006` --- ### 📝 Commits (1) - [`257d164`](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/257d1645e386428c18f50beef2e4a9937aad749b) fix(mcp): recognize implicit form elicitation capability ### 📊 Changes **2 files changed** (+63 additions, -3 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `src/server/mcpClientMetadata.ts` (+7 -3) ➕ `tests/boundary/mcp/clientCapabilities.test.ts` (+56 -0) </details> ### 📄 Description ## Problem `binary_session` reports `elicitation_form: false` when a request declares `elicitation: {}`. The MCP protocol defines that declaration as implicit form-mode support. This makes REA's reported client capabilities disagree with the negotiated request and the SDK's compatibility behavior. ## Change Recognize implicit form support only when an elicitation capability object is present. A missing capability still reports no support; explicit URL-only declarations remain URL-only. The projection continues to use request-scoped metadata. ## Verification - Actual pinned SDK 2.3.1 `Client` and `InMemoryTransport` calling REA's registered `binary_session` tool: before the fix, the implicit-form case failed while explicit form, URL-only, and absent-capability controls passed. - After the fix: five capability cases plus the four existing server-identity tests passed (9 total). - `npm run check` passed all five tasks, with 124 existing lint warnings and no errors. - No tool schema, provider behavior, packaging, or Hopper/Ghidra support claim changes. Protocol reference: [MCP elicitation capabilities](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/blob/main/docs/specification/2026-07-28/client/elicitation.mdx). AI assistance: Codex investigated, implemented, and tested this change; an independent agent reviewed the source and protocol interpretation. --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>

bsakaguchi

2026-10-16 21:15:49 +00:00