Skip to content

RFD: Add Elicitation specification for structured user input#376

Draft
yordis wants to merge 11 commits intoagentclientprotocol:mainfrom
yordis:yordis/elicitation-rfc
Draft

RFD: Add Elicitation specification for structured user input#376
yordis wants to merge 11 commits intoagentclientprotocol:mainfrom
yordis:yordis/elicitation-rfc

Conversation

@yordis
Copy link

@yordis yordis commented Jan 12, 2026

Signed-off-by: Yordis Prieto yordis.prieto@gmail.com

@yordis yordis changed the title docs(rfd): Add Elicitation specification for structured user input RFD: Add Elicitation specification for structured user input Jan 12, 2026
@ignatov
Copy link
Contributor

ignatov commented Jan 12, 2026

Hey! Thanks for contributing, is it true, that we can handle things like that https://github.com/orgs/agentclientprotocol/discussions/371 with this feature?

@phil65
Copy link
Contributor

phil65 commented Jan 13, 2026

Just for some context, OpenCodes question tool schema:
https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/7268/changes#diff-2036e0c76252554ccff3dfc803b49917c90430275cadc8f9962ba528780c4e79
Claude codes question tool schema:
https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/python#ask-user-question
I guess these question tools as well as MCP elicitaiton are the most common use cases for this feature (+ perhaps some onboarding flows).
This is one of the biggest gaps in ACP currently I think, so +1 from me for this RFD :)

@yordis
Copy link
Author

yordis commented Jan 13, 2026

Hey @ignatov these type of spec should allow for that type of "question" form to happen. In fact, my existing ACP needs is all about such feature.

I am trying to write the spec AND figure out if I can make Zed GUI to implement it.

Overall, the intent is to allow structure input from the user such as Questionnaire, or buttons for specific auctions (at least that is my immediate need).

Copy link
Member

@benbrandt benbrandt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We definitely need something like this, and adopting the same pattern as MCP also allows us to forward MCP elicitation requests which is nice

@yordis
Copy link
Author

yordis commented Jan 15, 2026

@benbrandt is it OK to ask to ignore the Rust changes for now, I know it could be annoying, but I am trying to make Zed to work to see the full picture, I just realized that I committed those changes as well while trying to fix the request/response situation.

Since I am in such active development, and I want to see Zed working, the burden is on you to ignore those files and only focus on the markdown until we are ready to merge.

Otherwise, totally cool, I create another branch for myself, just make it a bit more difficult since it requires to switch between them and synchronize a bit more.

@ignatov
Copy link
Contributor

ignatov commented Feb 1, 2026

@benbrandt I think that we have to work on that in the next wave

@yordis
Copy link
Author

yordis commented Feb 1, 2026

@ignatov tomorrow I am back home so I can continue the work, I got distracted by trying to actually make a Zed GUI that allow us to do OpenCode-style of questionnaire as a PoC.

Let me know whatever you would like to see happening, I am available in 24hrs

Copy link
Member

@benbrandt benbrandt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK left some notes.
I would also appreciate to have the RFD merged separately from the Rust changes. as some of the things you have added would fit better within the SDK (this crate should be mostly limited to schema types)

So before we can merge this, I would want these separated to focus the review and also save you a bunch of extra work

@yordis
Copy link
Author

yordis commented Feb 4, 2026

I would also appreciate to have the RFD merged separately from the Rust changes.

That will happen for sure! Please ignore for now, 🙏🏻 I will revert the code tomorrow when I wake up and move it to another branch for my own sake.

@yordis yordis force-pushed the yordis/elicitation-rfc branch from 01c9114 to 5216630 Compare February 6, 2026 02:18
Signed-off-by: Yordis Prieto <yordis.prieto@gmail.com>
@yordis yordis force-pushed the yordis/elicitation-rfc branch from 5216630 to 275bba2 Compare February 6, 2026 02:19
@yordis
Copy link
Author

yordis commented Feb 6, 2026

@benbrandt to what extent I should simplify the RFD and simply point to MCP spec? Otherwise, I am getting lost in term of making sure I added all the semantic correctly. And I can't see what exactly is just an addon from ACP perspective.

Any thoughts on the topic?

@yordis yordis requested a review from benbrandt February 6, 2026 03:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants