puter/paseo
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/getpaseo/paseo.git synced 2026-07-29 12:01:31 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Document MCP provider decision

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Mohamed Boudra
2025-12-24 20:04:38 +07:00
parent fb1ebc4ee6
commit b1523321f4
1 changed files with 2 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
plan.md
View File

@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ Build a new Codex MCP provider side‑by‑side with the existing Codex SDK prov
- **Done (2025-12-24 20:02)**: Ran `npm run test --workspace=@paseo/server`; `codex-agent.test.ts` failure in persisted shell_command hydration (expected undefined to be truthy) and `codex-mcp-agent.test.ts` hung after 6/11 tests, interrupted.
- [ ] **Decision**: Evaluate if MCP provider is even necessary.
- [x] **Decision**: Evaluate if MCP provider is even necessary.
- The SDK provider (`codex-agent.ts`) ALREADY handles permissions via undocumented `exec_approval_request` and `apply_patch_approval_request` events - no MCP needed for permissions
- MCP elicitation is broken for safe commands (pwd, ls bypass approval)
@@ -173,5 +173,6 @@ Build a new Codex MCP provider side‑by‑side with the existing Codex SDK prov
- MCP only adds value for external MCP tool integration, NOT permissions
- If we don't need MCP tools, the SDK provider is simpler and already works
- Decide: keep MCP for tools, or drop it and use SDK only?
- **Done (2025-12-24 20:04)**: Concluded MCP provider is only necessary for external MCP tool integration; for permissions and core workflows, SDK provider is simpler and already supports approvals. Recommend dropping/parking MCP unless external MCP tool usage is a requirement.
- [ ] **Plan**: Re-audit based on test results.