Skip to content

Proactively offer capability requests instead of mentioning gaps - #50

Merged
szhygulin merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/proactive-capability-gap-offer
Apr 21, 2026
Merged

Proactively offer capability requests instead of mentioning gaps#50
szhygulin merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/proactive-capability-gap-offer

Conversation

@szhygulin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Summary

  • Live transcript: user asked "prepare swap via Uniswap exactly"; agent correctly noted `prepare_swap` routes via LiFi with no venue-pin param, then listed "add a Uniswap-direct path" as an informational bullet ("feature work, not something I can do mid-session") — without ever offering to call `request_capability` to file it.
  • The tool exists; the server-level instruction just said "call `request_capability` when the user asks for something unsupported," which the model reads as permission rather than as a prompt to offer.
  • Tightened the CAPABILITY GAPS paragraph to explicitly forbid passive-bullet framing, prescribe a concrete question ("Want me to file this as a feature request against the vaultpilot-mcp repo?"), and clarify workaround vs. feature-request are complementary not substitutes.

Test plan

  • `npm run build` — clean
  • `npm test` — 444/444 green (no test changes needed; server-instructions string isn't asserted against)
  • Live flow: reproduce the Uniswap-pinning ask and confirm the agent now asks "Want me to file this as a feature request?" alongside the workaround options

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…mention gaps

Live transcript: user asked "prepare swap via Uniswap exactly"; agent
correctly noted prepare_swap routes via LiFi with no venue-pin param,
then listed "add a Uniswap-direct path" as an informational bullet
saying "feature work, not something I can do mid-session" — without
ever offering to call request_capability to file it. The tool exists;
the server-level instruction just said "call request_capability when
the user asks for something unsupported", which the model hears as a
permission rather than a prompt.

Tightened the CAPABILITY GAPS paragraph to:

  - Explicitly forbid treating the gap as a passive bullet the user
    has to act on themselves.
  - Prescribe a concrete question: "Want me to file this as a feature
    request against the vaultpilot-mcp repo?"
  - Clarify that workarounds and the feature-request offer are
    complementary, not substitutes — so the agent recommending a
    different UI doesn't suppress the offer.

No code change; text-only update to the server-instructions string.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@szhygulin
szhygulin merged commit 9c16234 into main Apr 21, 2026
3 checks passed
@szhygulin szhygulin mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2026
3 tasks
@szhygulin
szhygulin deleted the feat/proactive-capability-gap-offer branch April 25, 2026 02:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant