There are alot of Actions APIs, I suspect the single-file per API area will break down at some point.

I tried defining a separateactions package, but it created some circular dependencies with thisgithub package.
I'd be happy to explore that more, but I wanted to keep these changes focused on this tool.

Appreciate you mentioning though, it's same reason I didn't consider new packages for tools yet.

Pretty sure the helpers and server can be extracted to their own packages to avoid this.

CC@williammartin@juruen

There are alot of Actions APIs, I suspect the single-file per API area will break down at some point.

I tried defining a separateactions package, but it created some circular dependencies with thisgithub package.

This might open an interesting debate that really resonates with me!

When I started writing Go, I came from other languages where quickly deciding to use packages was the norm. So I followed suit, and my initial reaction was to do the same. However, over time, I've come to terms with the fact that this might not be entirely idiomatic.

Takego-github, for example — they implement almost the entire GitHub API withina single package.

So my point here is that maybe we don't need to introduce more packages right away. We might consider another alternative, such as splitting the functionality into files likeactions_foo.go,actions_bar.go, etc., and that might be more idiomatic.

Having said that, I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I'd like us to consider the above before we make the decision.

Thanks! ❤️

This was mostly generated by Copilot, not sure if there's a better way to process an object parameter.

No mention of case-sensitivity here. Does that imply that it is case-sensitive? Should we be explicit?

This matches the description used by most/all of the otherrepo MCP inputs in this repo, so I stuck to being consistent with them.

I was thinking it might make sense to define some constant/reusable input definitions for these common inputs like repo & owner for consistency.

Just the workflow file name itself is acceptable? Or the relative path to the workflow file?

The API supports both

Relative path

gh api -X POST /repos/joshmgross/actions-testing/actions/workflows/hello-world.yaml/dispatches -f"ref=main"

Full path (note the/ must be escaped)

gh api -X POST /repos/joshmgross/actions-testing/actions/workflows/.github%2Fworkflows%2Fhello-world.yaml/dispatches -f"ref=main"

I don't thinkgithub/go-github will escape the/ by default though, so we might need to handle that 🤔

func (s*ActionsService)CreateWorkflowDispatchEventByFileName(ctx context.Context,owner,repo,workflowFileNamestring,eventCreateWorkflowDispatchEventRequest) (*Response,error) {u:=fmt.Sprintf("repos/%v/%v/actions/workflows/%v/dispatches",owner,repo,workflowFileName)returns.createWorkflowDispatchEvent(ctx,u,&event)}

https://github.com/google/go-github/blob/6f8bceff0b000e6c8f5a3e60922ca57188de264e/github/actions_workflows.go#L170-L179

I'd be tempted to flip this around too, and call itworkflow_file or something, as it has file access already it can probably work out what workflows it can provide. The ID is only useful where it has received it from a list, and the list endpoint can probably return the file location as part of the list, which is also more useful than the ID, in terms of editing the file.

Does that make sense? The goal here is to make an API that LLMs comprehend and use natively, so definitely have a think on this.

Renamed toworkflow_file -034621b

@SamMorrowDrums let me know if I added this correctly

Looking through#188, it seems like we don't want some toolsets enabled by default but it's not clear to me what enables that.

Default Enabled Features
By default, the following features are enabled:
...

As far as I can tell, the default is "all"