modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations
Watch
1
0
Fork
You've already forked experimental-ext-tool-annotations
 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
experimental-ext-tool-annot.../docs/intent-comment.md
Sam Morrow 2aea5dc6be
 docs: scaffold trust/privacy extension repo from SEP-1913 carve 
Carve the schema-bearing parts of SEP-1913 into three independent
experimental extensions, per @localden's "narrower first cut" ask and
the Tool Annotations IG's 2026-05-28 extension-first decision:

- io.modelcontextprotocol/trust-annotations (headline): narrow
  data-classification taxonomy (sensitive, untrusted) + open-ended
  evidenceRef pointer.
- io.modelcontextprotocol/action-metadata: carries forward SEP-2061
  (inputMetadata/returnMetadata/outcomes + requiresReview).
- io.modelcontextprotocol/ifc-fides: FIDES information-flow control as
  a profile of evidenceRef, not a wire root.

Adds repo meta (README, MAINTAINERS, CONTRIBUTING, LICENSE) and docs
(sep-disposition, intent-comment, decisions, open-questions,
trust-model, related-work). FIDES demoted to a profile; DataClass and
requiresReview rehomed; maliciousActivityHint and propagation parked on
the SEP-1913 umbrella. Citations index on public sources only.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-06-10 23:50:22 +02:00

3.7 KiB
Raw Blame History

Intent comment (draft, pre-post review)

This is the comment we plan to post on SEP-1913, with an abbreviated pointer version for SEP-2061. Kept here so it can be reviewed and stays in sync with sep-disposition.md.

For SEP-1913

Intent: split this SEP and migrate to the Extensions Track

A note on direction for everyone following this thread. When SEP-1913 was first framed, the Extensions Track (SEP-2133) and the experimental-ext-* incubation process didn't exist in their current form. They now do, and they're a better fit for this work than a single Standards Track SEP.

Two things pushed us here:

  • @localden's review ask for a narrower first cut — the concern that a broad taxonomy with array-or-scalar polymorphism is hard to remove or change once it lands.
  • The Tool Annotations IG's May 28 decision to pursue trust/privacy as an experimental extension first, gather adoption evidence, then ask core maintainers to absorb anything.

So the plan is to carve this proposal into a few small, independently-shippable extensions, each with its own io.modelcontextprotocol/… identifier, reference implementation, and path to an Extensions Track SEP. Incubation is in experimental-ext-tool-annotations:

Extension Scope
trust-annotations The narrow data-classification taxonomy (sensitive, untrusted) + an open-ended evidenceRef pointer for richer, out-of-band evidence.
action-metadata Tool I/O + outcome contract (folds in @rreichel3's SEP-2061).
ifc-fides Information-flow control (arXiv:2505.23643) as one profile of evidenceRef, not a wire root — the public/private-repo confidentiality case, with github-mcp-server as emitter candidate.

Deliberately not in the initial carve: maliciousActivityHint (the structural concerns raised here are unresolved) and session-level propagation rules. Those stay parked on this umbrella thread.

This follows the same Standards-Track → Extensions-Track refactor pattern as SEP-2127 (#2893). This PR stays open as the umbrella / problem-framing thread; the schema-bearing pieces move out. Feedback on the carve is very welcome — particularly on whether any parked item deserves its own extension sooner.

For SEP-2061 (abbreviated pointer)

Cross-linking for visibility: the Tool Annotations IG is carving the trust / privacy / action-metadata work into small experimental extensions in experimental-ext-tool-annotations (background: SEP-1913 comment here, and the May 28 IG decision).

This proposal maps directly onto the action-metadata extension — inputMetadata / returnMetadata / outcomes, plus a requiresReview signal we pulled out of the trust taxonomy because it's a workflow concern, not a data property. The intent is to carry SEP-2061 forward as that extension rather than run a parallel proposal. @rreichel3 — flagging so we co-own it rather than diverge; happy to keep this thread as the home for the field semantics.