David Cantú

@copilot this is a breaking change, you need to update src/Libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.AI.Abstractions/CompatibilitySuppressions.xml to fix CI errors ``` /mnt/vss/_work/1/s/.dotnet/sdk/10.0.100/Sdks/Microsoft.NET.Sdk/targets/Microsoft.NET.ApiCompat.ValidatePackage.targets(39,5): error : API compatibility errors between 'lib/net462/Microsoft.Extensions.AI.Abstractions.dll' (/mnt/vss/_work/1/s/.packages/microsoft.extensions.ai.abstractions/9.10.0/microsoft.extensions.ai.abstractions.9.10.0.nupkg) and 'lib/net462/Microsoft.Extensions.AI.Abstractions.dll' (/mnt/vss/_work/1/s/artifacts/packages/Release/Shipping/Microsoft.Extensions.AI.Abstractions.10.2.0-ci.nupkg): [/mnt/vss/_work/1/s/src/Libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.AI.Abstractions/Microsoft.Extensions.AI.Abstractions.csproj] /mnt/vss/_work/1/s/.dotnet/sdk/10.0.100/Sdks/Microsoft.NET.Sdk/targets/Microsoft.NET.ApiCompat.ValidatePackage.targets(39,5):...

> Does this base class alone solve much? Only be the recommended type to use as base ~~or to instantiate directly~~ to represent server-side content like function calls and results....

> is that conflating too much? Yes, FCC.Exception would be meaningless and FCC.Name is odd in MCP content since we have two kinds of names, ServerName and ToolName. Maybe if...

> or if the FCC represents a call handled by the IChatClient itself You mean the `UseMcpClient` cases right? Overall, it sounds fine to me then. Would we also unseal...

> Do we need the base "user input" / "user output" types? Aside from what I said in https://github.com/dotnet/extensions/issues/6779#issuecomment-3271400229, I'm not opposed to remove them, I that could also alleviate...

@stephentoub yes, that's what we had originally. > We'd do the same when we add call/result content for other hosted tool types. Do you have something concrete that wouldn't fit...

> > Do you have something concrete that wouldn't fit nicely with the current naming? > > I'm not sure what you mean. I somehow missed this.  I was thinking...

> I was playing around with wrapping the Tools from my MCP Client into a ApprovalRequiredAiFunction, but this does nothing. Am I right from what I read here, that approval...

> we should think more as well about the representation of server-side calls. @stephentoub, I think is reasonable to add `ServerSideContent : AIContent` that can be extended by MCP and...

> I'm curious which other ID this was confused with? Most likely the CallId from FunctionCall/ResultContent and McpServerToolCall/ResultContent. It was originally mentioned in https://github.com/dotnet/extensions/issues/6779, in case that rings a bell.