I personally don't find it terribly useful, but I'm dead set against it either :)

Honestly my position is similar, but @maxandersen requested it so.. ;)

@maxandersen why do you need this instead of just using standard CDI features?

Status for workflow Build (on pull request)

This is the status report for running Build (on pull request) on commit 91b31af.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.

see details of discussion in https://quarkusio.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/187038-dev/topic/mcp.20client

issue is that to use built-in CDI I either have to

1. know the names of tools upfront; since with mcp the usecase is to be able to add additional tools in configuration that is not an option.
2. use injection of all tools, which give me all tools but does not give me their name

Hence the ask for tools to know their name OR be able to get a map from names to the tools to use.

does that make sense?

(same issue exists for when wanting to support multiple models in quarkus l4j)

use injection of all tools, which give me all tools but does not give me their name

Are you sure? You can extract the qualifiers from the instance, no?

Hmm. Not something I found ? Got example ?

Something like:

        boolean found = false;
        for (InstanceHandle<McpClient> handle : Arc.container().select(McpClient.class).handles()) {
            InjectableBean<McpClient> bean = handle.getBean();
            for (Annotation qualifier : bean.getQualifiers()) {
                if (qualifier instanceof McpClient mcpClient) }
                    if ("whatever".equals(name)) {
                        found = true;
                        break; 
                    }
                }
            }
        }