🤖 fix: preserve optional MCP arguments and surface tool errors - #3821
🤖 fix: preserve optional MCP arguments and surface tool errors#3821ethanndickson wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 8208bf62df
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed both strict-schema findings in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 937e7cdc8a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed the constrained optional-schema finding in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ac8fa476e9
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed the implicit free-form object finding in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 85d7a72400
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed the partially open object finding in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0d13ac2ac2
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed the strict-schema depth finding in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 74eed9af74
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed both strict-schema compatibility findings in |
|
Correction: the strict-schema compatibility fixes are in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 177b746cff
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed the enum and string-budget findings in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a674583dbe
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed the draft-marker and nullable-enum findings in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 176baec195
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed the schema identifier finding in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 11db635f45
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed the unsupported-keyword finding in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 18d600514f
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review I addressed both findings in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9d80b32b5e
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review The latest commit fixes array-union omission restoration and boolean-schema null preservation. Focused tests and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 44190636e7
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review The latest commit gates workflow omission restoration on successful strict projection across provider validation, tool execution, and terminal finalization. Focused regressions and |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
Widen optional MCP properties to nullable model inputs, then strip synthetic nulls before execution. Route MCP application failures through the tool error channel. Generated with mux • Model: openai:gpt-5.6-sol • Thinking: xhigh
8f35de7 to
4b50518
Compare
ethanndickson
changed the title
|
@codex review I replaced the previous route-aware strict-schema projection with the MCP boundary adapter in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4b50518471
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Generated with mux • Model: openai:gpt-5.6-sol • Thinking: xhigh
|
Addressed both review findings:
|
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Hooray! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
ethanndickson
changed the title
1 participant
Summary
Adapt MCP tool schemas at the client boundary so models can omit optional non-nullable arguments under OpenAI Responses constrained decoding. MCP application failures now use the normal tool-error path instead of appearing as successful output.
Background
OpenAI Responses can normalise third-party tool schemas into strict mode. Strict mode requires every declared property, which makes an optional non-nullable MCP argument impossible to omit. This produced synthetic
nullvalues or fabricated values. Linear then rejected invalid combinations such asstatusUpdateTypewithoutstatusUpdateId.Mux also treated MCP results with
isError: trueas successful tool results. The model could not reliably correct the failed call, and application error text such asnot connectedcould incorrectly recycle a healthy MCP client.Implementation
nullfor the provider-facing schema.nullvalues beforetools/calland workflow report validation.$ref,$dynamicRef, or$recursiveRefunchanged and setstrict: false. This avoids incomplete reference resolution.MCPToolCallErrorwhile preserving useful text and resource content.The adapter stays at the MCP boundary. It does not add provider-route or schema-dialect configuration.
Validation
The regression coverage includes Linear-shaped optional arguments, required fields declared through composition, union restoration, dictionary schemas, reference fallbacks, schema sanitizer behavior, binary error payloads, and application errors that resemble transport failures.
Risks
The main risk is changing arguments before MCP execution. Restoration is conservative: it removes only optional
nullvalues whose source schema deterministically rejectsnull. Referenced schemas use the non-strict fallback instead of speculative transformation.Generated with
mux• Model:openai:gpt-5.6-sol• Thinking:xhigh