# Session Report

**Session ID:** 762e348c-1103-48c2-adf8-6f3b0dec3deb

---

## Step 1: User Turn

### System Prompt

```
You are an expert Haskell programmer specialized in analyzing user requirements and Haskell code.
You prepare well-documented individual issues.
You should chunk the work into smaller issues following the 'Feature Branch Isolation' model:
- Identify a 'Feature Branch' name (e.g., 'gh-123' for issue #123).
- All sub-tasks for this feature must use this branch name as their 'branch_name' argument.
- All sub-tasks should pull from and merge to this feature branch.
- Enforce linearization of work by setting 'dependencies' appropriately (e.g., task B depends on task A).
- Add a final task (the 'ultimate PR') that merges the feature branch into 'main'. This task must have 'is_final' set to 'true'.
Each individual issue you create will be executed by a human of software agent independently from each other and in the order specified by dependencies.
Your strategy should be as follows:
- avoid chunks that will generate conflicts (i.e., individual issues should not ask to modify the same file unless they are sequential)
- repeat important data types between different tasks for a same project when they are used in multiple files
You mention important tradeoffs.
You can ask user questions, when doing so always assume the answer could be 'i do not know'.
Do not create tracking issues.
Your output format may be stored as commit message: hence the first line of your last message should be a summary line.
```

### User Query

# [aspirational] add a set of features to directly manipulate tools

Depends-on: #135 #139 
Base-branch: main
Final: false

Today, defining and loading agents is the only way for exercising tools.

We would benefit from some layer allowing us to directly do the following:

- list tools from the command line
- map an agents' toolbox into a single nested tool (e.g., agent has tool a, b, c) then you can implement `agents-exe toolbox nest [describe|run]` that will expose one tool for multiple tools ; this is useful for directly testing MCP tools with the simpler bash-tool interface (described in docs/internal-tool-mapping.md)
- directly map a toolbox over MCP without an indirection that turns an agent into an ioTool `agents-exe toolbox mcp`




---
Please mention issue #117 in the commit message.



### Available Tools

- **bash_grep-files** (`bash_grep-files`)
  - Description: Search for a pattern in files using 'git grep'
- **bash_create_github_issue** (`bash_create_github_issue`)
  - Description: creates a github issue using the 'gh' CLI
- **bash_get_git_commit** (`bash_get_git_commit`)
  - Description: read a git commit by it's short name or long sha
- **bash_ask_user** (`bash_ask_user`)
  - Description: Displays interactive dialogs to ask the user for input using zenity. Supports text entry, yes/no questions, list selection, and file selection dialogs.
- **bash_list-files** (`bash_list-files`)
  - Description: List all files in the project
- **bash_read-file** (`bash_read-file`)
  - Description: Read the contents of a file
- **bash_curl_web_page** (`bash_curl_web_page`)
  - Description: reads a web page
- **bash_display_large_text** (`bash_display_large_text`)
  - Description: Displays large markdown-formatted text using markdown-eye viewer. The text is passed via stdin and the tool blocks until the user closes the viewer. Note: images are not supported.

---

## Step 2: LLM Turn

### Thinking Process

<details>
<summary>Click to expand reasoning</summary>

The user wants me to analyze this aspirational issue and create a set of well-documented sub-issues following the 'Feature Branch Isolation' model. Let me first understand the requirements:

1. List tools from the command line
2. Map an agents' toolbox into a single nested tool
3. Directly map a toolbox over MCP without an indirection through an agent

The issue mentions dependencies on #135 and #139, and has a base-branch of main. It's not the final issue.

Let me first explore the codebase to understand the current structure and how tools/agents work.
</details>

### Response

I'll analyze this aspirational issue and break it down into well-documented sub-tasks. First, let me explore the codebase to understand the current structure.

### Tool Calls

- **bash_list-files**

---

## Step 3: User Turn



---

## Step 4: LLM Turn

### Thinking Process

<details>
<summary>Click to expand reasoning</summary>

Let me explore the key files to understand the current tool structure, CLI, and how MCP works.
</details>

### Response



### Tool Calls

- **bash_read-file**
- **bash_read-file**
- **bash_read-file**

---

## Step 5: User Turn



---

## Step 6: LLM Turn

### Thinking Process

<details>
<summary>Click to expand reasoning</summary>

Let me explore more files to understand the tool schema and MCP structure, as well as the internal-tool-mapping.md mentioned in the issue.
</details>

### Response



### Tool Calls

- **bash_read-file**
- **bash_read-file**
- **bash_grep-files**

---

## Step 7: User Turn



---

## Step 8: LLM Turn

### Thinking Process

<details>
<summary>Click to expand reasoning</summary>

Let me search for more context about how tools are loaded and the structure of the project. I need to understand how bash tools work and how tools are listed/discovered.
</details>

### Response



### Tool Calls

- **bash_read-file**
- **bash_read-file**
- **bash_read-file**

---

## Step 9: User Turn



---

## Step 10: LLM Turn

### Thinking Process

<details>
<summary>Click to expand reasoning</summary>

Now I have a good understanding of the codebase. Let me also look at the MCP Base and the IO tools to understand how they work.
</details>

### Response



### Tool Calls

- **bash_read-file**
- **bash_read-file**

---

## Step 11: User Turn



---

## Step 12: LLM Turn

### Thinking Process

<details>
<summary>Click to expand reasoning</summary>

Now I have a good understanding of the codebase. Let me look at how the tool registration works to understand how tools are exposed.
</details>

### Response



### Tool Calls

- **bash_read-file**
- **bash_read-file**

---

## Step 13: User Turn



---

## Step 14: LLM Turn

### Thinking Process

<details>
<summary>Click to expand reasoning</summary>

Let me look at the Runtime.Runtime module to understand how tools are managed.
</details>

### Response



### Tool Calls

- **bash_read-file**

---

## Step 15: User Turn



---

## Step 16: LLM Turn

### Thinking Process

<details>
<summary>Click to expand reasoning</summary>

Now I have a good understanding of the codebase. Let me summarize what I've learned:

1. **Tools System**: The system has multiple types of tools:
   - Bash tools - External scripts with describe|run protocol
   - IO tools - Haskell functions executed in-process
   - MCP tools - Tools exposed via Model Context Protocol
   - OpenAPI tools - Generated from OpenAPI specs
   - PostgREST tools - Generated from PostgREST APIs

2. **Tool Registration**: Tools are registered via `ToolRegistration` which contains:
   - `innerTool :: Tool ()` - The executable tool
   - `declareTool :: OpenAI.Tool` - The LLM-facing declaration
   - `findTool :: OpenAI.ToolCall -> Maybe (Tool OpenAI.ToolCall)` - Lookup function

3. **Current Flow**: Today, tools are only accessible through agents. The `Runtime` has an `agentTools :: IO [ToolRegistration]` that provides access to tools.

4. **CLI Structure**: The main CLI is in `app/Main.hs` with subcommands like:
   - check
   - tui
   - run
   - describe
   - export/import
   - mcp-server

Now I need to design the issues for:

1. **List tools from command line** - A new CLI subcommand to list tools
2. **Toolbox nesting** - Create a nested tool that wraps multiple tools behind a single interface (useful for testing MCP tools with bash-tool interface)
3. **Direct MCP toolbox mapping** - Directly map a toolbox over MCP without agent indirection

Let me create the issues following the Feature Branch Isolation model.

Key considerations:
- The feature branch should be named `gh-117` since we need to mention #117 in the commit message
- Issue #135 and #139 are dependencies
- All sub-tasks should use `gh-117` as their branch_name


- I need to establish a linear dependency chain where Issue 1 must complete before Issue 2 can begin, and Issue 2 must finish before Issue 3 starts. Finally, Issue 4 will serve as the ultimate PR that merges everything together.
</details>

### Response

Now I have a comprehensive understanding of the codebase. Let me create the well-documented issues following the Feature Branch Isolation model.

## Summary of Analysis

The codebase has a sophisticated tool system with multiple tool types (Bash, IO, MCP, OpenAPI, PostgREST). Currently, tools are only accessible through agents via the `Runtime` type. The aspirational issue asks for:

1. **CLI tool listing** - Direct visibility into available tools
2. **Toolbox nesting** - Wrap multiple tools into a single nested tool (useful for testing MCP tools via bash interface)
3. **Direct MCP mapping** - Map a toolbox over MCP without agent indirection

I'll create the following sub-issues:
- Issue 1: Add CLI command to list tools
- Issue 2: Implement toolbox nesting functionality
- Issue 3: Implement direct MCP toolbox mapping
- Issue 4: Ultimate PR to merge feature branch

### Tool Calls

- **bash_create_github_issue**
- **bash_create_github_issue**
- **bash_create_github_issue**
- **bash_create_github_issue**

---

## Step 17: User Turn



---

## Step 18: LLM Turn

### Thinking Process

<details>
<summary>Click to expand reasoning</summary>

All four issues have been created successfully. Let me provide a summary to the user with the issue numbers and a brief explanation of the strategy.
</details>

### Response

I've created four well-documented issues following the Feature Branch Isolation model. Here's a summary:

## Created Issues

| Issue | Title | Purpose |
|-------|-------|---------|
| **#142** | Add CLI `toolbox list` command to list available tools | First feature - list tools from CLI without loading agents |
| **#143** | Implement `toolbox nest` command to wrap multiple tools | Second feature - create nested bash-compatible tools from toolboxes |
| **#144** | Implement `toolbox mcp` command for direct MCP mapping | Third feature - expose toolboxes as MCP servers without agent indirection |
| **#145** | Ultimate PR: Merge tool manipulation features into main | Final integration PR that merges all features |

## Feature Branch Strategy

- **Base branch**: `main`
- **Feature branch**: `gh-117` (all sub-tasks use this branch)
- **Dependencies**: #135, #139 (as specified in the original issue)
- **Is_final**: Only #145 is marked as final

## Key Design Decisions

### Tradeoffs Mentioned

1. **`toolbox list`**: MCP tool listing requires briefly connecting to the MCP server; tool descriptions may differ from what the LLM sees due to name normalization.

2. **`toolbox nest`**: 
   - Uses embedded JSON config + bash dispatch (not pure bash for MCP tools, calls back to `agents-exe`)
   - Generated scripts can become stale if underlying tools change
   
3. **`toolbox mcp`**:
   - Loses agent-level features (tool selection logic, retries)
   - Much lower overhead than agent-based MCP server

### Conflict Avoidance

Each issue creates/modifies distinct files:
- #142: Creates `System.Agents.Tools.List`, modifies CLI
- #143: Creates `System.Agents.Tools.Nest`, modifies CLI
- #144: Creates `System.Agents.Tools.McpServer`, modifies CLI
- #145: Integration only, no new code

The CLI modifications (`app/Main.hs`) are additive (new subparsers), so they won't conflict if done independently.

## Mentioning #117

Issue #145 (the ultimate PR) includes the required commit message mentioning #117:
```
Relates-to: #117
```
