llama-stack-mirror/tests/integration/recordings/responses/e9c8a0e4f0e0.json
Ashwin Bharambe ef0736527d
feat(tools)!: substantial clean up of "Tool" related datatypes (#3627)
This is a sweeping change to clean up some gunk around our "Tool"
definitions.

First, we had two types `Tool` and `ToolDef`. The first of these was a
"Resource" type for the registry but we had stopped registering tools
inside the Registry long back (and only registered ToolGroups.) The
latter was for specifying tools for the Agents API. This PR removes the
former and adds an optional `toolgroup_id` field to the latter.

Secondly, as pointed out by @bbrowning in
https://github.com/llamastack/llama-stack/pull/3003#issuecomment-3245270132,
we were doing a lossy conversion from a full JSON schema from the MCP
tool specification into our ToolDefinition to send it to the model.
There is no necessity to do this -- we ourselves aren't doing any
execution at all but merely passing it to the chat completions API which
supports this. By doing this (and by doing it poorly), we encountered
limitations like not supporting array items, or not resolving $refs,
etc.

To fix this, we replaced the `parameters` field by `{ input_schema,
output_schema }` which can be full blown JSON schemas.

Finally, there were some types in our llama-related chat format
conversion which needed some cleanup. We are taking this opportunity to
clean those up.

This PR is a substantial breaking change to the API. However, given our
window for introducing breaking changes, this suits us just fine. I will
be landing a concurrent `llama-stack-client` change as well since API
shapes are changing.
2025-10-02 15:12:03 -07:00

56 lines
2.5 KiB
JSON

{
"request": {
"method": "POST",
"url": "http://0.0.0.0:11434/v1/v1/chat/completions",
"headers": {},
"body": {
"model": "llama3.2:3b-instruct-fp16",
"messages": [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Which planet do humans live on?"
}
],
"stream": false
},
"endpoint": "/v1/chat/completions",
"model": "llama3.2:3b-instruct-fp16"
},
"response": {
"body": {
"__type__": "openai.types.chat.chat_completion.ChatCompletion",
"__data__": {
"id": "chatcmpl-380",
"choices": [
{
"finish_reason": "stop",
"index": 0,
"logprobs": null,
"message": {
"content": "Humans have not yet established a permanent, self-sustaining presence on another planet. However, there are astronauts and cosmonauts who have traveled to space and lived on the International Space Station (ISS) in low Earth orbit.\n\nAs for human habitation on planets outside of our solar system, there are currently no known planets that support life or can sustain human life in the same way as Earth.\n\nThat being said, scientists and astronomers are actively exploring the possibility of finding habitable exoplanets (planets with conditions similar to those of Earth) using various detection methods. Some notable examples include:\n\n1. Mars: NASA's Curiosity rover has been searching for signs of past or present life on Mars since 2012.\n2. Europa: This Jupiter moon is thought to have a liquid water ocean beneath its surface, which could potentially support life.\n\nHowever, it's essential to note that humans have not yet established any permanent settlements or habitats on other planets or moons in our solar system.\n\nSo, for now, Earth remains the only planet known to support human life.",
"refusal": null,
"role": "assistant",
"annotations": null,
"audio": null,
"function_call": null,
"tool_calls": null
}
}
],
"created": 1759437879,
"model": "llama3.2:3b-instruct-fp16",
"object": "chat.completion",
"service_tier": null,
"system_fingerprint": "fp_ollama",
"usage": {
"completion_tokens": 217,
"prompt_tokens": 32,
"total_tokens": 249,
"completion_tokens_details": null,
"prompt_tokens_details": null
}
}
},
"is_streaming": false
}
}