[Issue Arborist] MCP modernization relationships #5036
Closed
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
⚓ Avast! This discussion be marked as outdated by Issue Arborist. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
🌳 Issue Arborist Daily Report
Date: 2025-11-28
Issues Analyzed: 20
New Parent Issues Created
toolsets:defaults (docs, CLI help, compiler linting)Links Created
Potential Relationships (For Manual Review)
[Parent] Schema paritytracker, but similar closed parents ([Parent] Schema parity between main and included workflow schemas #4997, [Parent] Align main and included workflow schemas #4986, [Parent] Align main and included workflow schemas #4984) exist. Consider consolidating or linking the remaining child issues ([task] Remove headers and url properties from stdio_mcp_tool in included_file_schema.json #4970-[task] Align anyOf requirements for stdio_mcp_tool across schemas #4974) directly to [Parent] Schema parity between main and included workflow schemas #4998 to avoid future confusion.Observations
trackingorai-generated). Watch for duplicate parent creation (as with the schema parity work) so autonomy runs do not fragment ownership.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions