feat: Allow renaming tools in ClientGroup #2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When using tools from multiple servers a name conflict might happen. In this change we: 1. Throw when a ClientGroup is created with conflicting tool names. 2. Allow the user to specify a component renaming function to fix name conflicts. We also add a `name` getter in the `Client` class as it provides useful information for solving tool name conflicts.
This was referenced May 13, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation and Context
This stack of changes makes it easier to work with multiple MCP servers from a single client.
This has also been requested in modelcontextprotocol#6
To make the review easier with smaller focused PRs I'm sending a stack or PRs with incremental implementation steps.
This PR:
ClientGroup.Still missing:
PR Stack
Note that since I'm sending the PRs from a fork, only the PR at the bottom of the stack is sent to modelcontextprotocol/typescript-sdk. As PRs land I'll update the target repository for the new base PR.
How Has This Been Tested?
npm run build && node dist/esm/examples/client/clientGroupSample.jsBreaking Changes
No breaking changes.
Types of changes
Checklist