Similarityoung opened a new issue, #937: URL: https://github.com/apache/dubbo-go-pixiu/issues/937
### ✅ Verification Checklist - [x] 🔍 I have searched the [existing issues](https://github.com/apache/dubbo-go-pixiu/issues) and confirmed this is not a duplicate ### ✨ Proposal Summary ## Background Pixiu supports exposing backend API services as MCP tools. In real-world scenarios, a gateway may manage many backend APIs, which may result in a large number of MCP tools. If all tools are directly exposed to the LLM, it may cause tool overload, increase context size, and make tool selection less accurate or less controllable. Therefore, I would like to propose exploring an intelligent MCP tool routing mechanism in Pixiu. ## Proposal Pixiu could introduce a routing layer to select a smaller and more suitable set of MCP tools for the current request or session, instead of exposing all available tools directly. A possible flow: ```text Backend API Services ↓ Pixiu wraps APIs as MCP Tools ↓ MCP Tool Router ↓ Expose selected tools to LLM / Agent ``` ### 🛠️ Implementation Approach This issue does not propose a fixed implementation. Some possible directions include: Method | Pros | Cons | Suitable Stage -- | -- | -- | -- Rule-based routing | Simple and controllable | Poor expression coverage | MVP Workflow bundle | Stable and complete tool chain | Requires manual maintenance | Recommended Schema matching | Accurate and explainable | Depends on entity extraction | Recommended Capability mapping | Decouples routing from concrete tools | Requires capability model design | Mid/Late stage Progressive tool disclosure | Exposes tools gradually like skills | Requires session state management | Recommended LLM router | Strong semantic understanding | Cost and stability concerns | Mid/Late stage Embedding-based routing | Good generalization | Not suitable for security decisions | Mid/Late stage Historical feedback | Improves over time | Weak cold start | Late stage </div></div> <p data-start="1856" data-end="2103" data-imt-p="1">These methods can also be combined. For example, Pixiu may first apply policy-based filtering, then use workflow bundles, schema matching, capability mapping, progressive disclosure, embedding search, or an LLM router to select the final tool set.</p> ### 📚 Additional Context ### Expected Benefits Reduce MCP tool overload for LLMs. Improve tool selection accuracy. Make MCP tool exposure more controllable. Provide a foundation for API-to-MCP governance in Pixiu. Enable future policy control, audit, and observability for MCP tool calls. ### Notes This issue is only a proposal and direction for discussion. The final design and implementation can be further explored by contributors. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
