Skip to content

fix(mcpserver): omit pydantic auto-derived titles on tool input schemas - #3475

Closed
ktz03 wants to merge 1 commit into
modelcontextprotocol:mainfrom
ktz03:fix/omit-auto-tool-input-titles
Closed

fix(mcpserver): omit pydantic auto-derived titles on tool input schemas#3475
ktz03 wants to merge 1 commit into
modelcontextprotocol:mainfrom
ktz03:fix/omit-auto-tool-input-titles

Conversation

@ktz03

@ktz03 ktz03 commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

  • Add ToolInputJsonSchema that suppresses pydantic auto-derived field titles via field_title_should_be_set.
  • Use it for Tool.from_function input model_json_schema generation.
  • Keep explicit Field(title=...) / WithJsonSchema titles; leave output-schema generation unchanged for a smaller blast radius.

Fixes #3391

Test plan

  • New unit tests: auto titles omitted; explicit Field(title=...) kept
  • Existing mcpserver tool / docs snapshot tests — may need expectation updates where they asserted auto titles on input properties

Tool inputSchema was paying Title Case restatements of every property key on every tools/list. Use ToolInputJsonSchema so auto titles are dropped while explicit Field(title=...) remains. Output schemas unchanged (modelcontextprotocol#3391).
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the missing-issue-link Auto-closed: PR needs a linked issue assigned to its author (see CONTRIBUTING.md) label Sep 8, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR has been closed automatically. This repo only keeps pull requests open when they come from a maintainer, or from a contributor a maintainer has assigned to the linked issue, and you aren't currently assigned to #3391.

If a maintainer assigns you to #3391, this PR reopens on its own and there's nothing more you need to do here. Assignment is a maintainer call based on capacity; comments that only ask to be assigned don't factor in. What does help is engaging on the issue itself by confirming the repro, explaining why it matters for your use case, or describing the approach you'd take.

You're welcome to keep pushing commits here (just avoid force-pushing, since GitHub can't reopen a rewritten branch), but that on its own won't get the PR reviewed or the issue assigned, and realistically most auto-closed PRs stay closed. There's no need to open a new PR either way.

CONTRIBUTING.md has the full reasoning, but in short:

  • We're a small team with very little capacity to review community PRs right now.
  • Many recent PRs are AI-generated with little human review, and reviewing one carefully still costs a maintainer as much time as it ever did. A well-described issue is usually more useful to us than the code.

Maintainers: reopen, remove missing-issue-link, or add bypass-issue-check to override.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

missing-issue-link Auto-closed: PR needs a linked issue assigned to its author (see CONTRIBUTING.md)

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Tool input schemas carry a pydantic-derived title on every property

1 participant