experimental-ext-tool-annot.../docs/decisions.md
Sam Morrow 70ec91c5f7
docs: drop jargon, make repo docs descriptive
Replace 'carve'/'headline' throughout; reframe the front-facing docs
(README, spec drafts, related-work) to describe what the repo contains
and link to it rather than narrate the process. Process framing stays in
the decision log and the intent-comment/sep-disposition planning docs.
Live SEP-1913/SEP-2061 comments updated to match.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-06-11 00:12:30 +02:00

3.9 KiB

Decision log

Append-only record of design decisions for the Tool Annotations IG's trust / privacy extension work. Newest at the bottom.

2026-06-10 — Split SEP-1913 into independent extensions

Decision. Split the schema-bearing parts of SEP-1913 into separate experimental extensions, each with its own io.modelcontextprotocol/… identifier and reference implementation, rather than pursuing one broad Standards Track SEP.

Rationale. @localden's review asked for a narrower first cut; the IG aligned 2026-05-28 on an extension-first strategy. Independent extensions can graduate on their own clock and avoid hard-to-remove schema.

2026-06-10 — Three initial extensions

Decision. trust-annotations (primary), action-metadata, ifc-fides.

Rationale. These are the three pieces with either a reference implementation or an existing SEP behind them: Kapil's SDK, SEP-2061 (Reichel), and the FIDES model respectively.

2026-06-10 — FIDES is a profile, not a top-level extension

Decision. Information-flow control is type: "ifc.fides.v1", a profile of the trust-annotations evidenceRef slot — not a top-level io.modelcontextprotocol/ifc extension.

Rationale. IFC is one enforcement model among several raised in review (capability tokens — pshkv; cosigning — viftode4; sequence shape — marras0914). A top-level ifc/ root would foreclose those. Reviewer endorsement was for IFC "if you use annotations" — i.e. as a profile.

2026-06-10 — evidenceRef.type is an open string

Decision. type MUST remain an open string with a non-binding registry of well-known values; never a closed enum. Required fields are digest and canonicalization; schema recommended; ref optional.

Rationale. Adapted from the vaaraio / Rul1an convergence in the SEP-1913 thread. An open type is what lets IFC, data-class, sequence-shape, and attestation profiles share one slot.

2026-06-10 — requiresReview moves to action-metadata

Decision. requiresReview is an action-metadata field, not a trust-annotations field.

Rationale. It is a workflow/consent signal, not a data-classification property. Keeping it out of the trust taxonomy avoids reproducing SEP-1913's "several concerns in one schema" problem at smaller scale.

2026-06-10 — DataClass demoted to a profile

Decision. The wire taxonomy keeps only the coarse sensitive boolean. The four-level classification + regulatory scope becomes an evidenceRef profile type: "data-class.v1".

Rationale. Coarse binary is universally client-actionable and cheap on the wire; the richer taxonomy can evolve behind a profile without a breaking schema change.

2026-06-10 — Parked: maliciousActivityHint, propagation rules

Decision. Neither becomes an extension now; both stay on the SEP-1913 umbrella.

Rationale. maliciousActivityHint has unresolved structural objections (fires pre-execution at tools/resolve; boolean granularity wrong for UX; clients won't trust server self-attestation). Propagation/sequence-shape needs the taxonomy and evidenceRef stable first.

2026-06-10 — Citations: public sources only

Decision. Reference implementations and motivating examples cite public artifacts — github-mcp-server, kapil8811/mcp-trust-annotations, arXiv:2505.23643 — and index on the public SEP-1913 review record (esp. @localden). Private/internal implementations are not named or linked.

2026-06-10 — Pre-flight (SEP-1862) stays core

Decision. These extensions are response-level and do not depend on Tool Resolution. SEP-1862 remains a core/Standards-Track protocol change.

Rationale. The 2026-05-28 IG meeting concluded pre-flight is inherently a protocol-level change, not an extension.