111–120 of 280 posts
This is heading in the wrong direction. > The future of AI agents is one where models work seamlessly across hundreds or thousands of tools. Says who? I see it going the other way - less tools, better skills to apply those tools. To take it to an extreme, you could get by with ShellTool.
Is there a good guide for all of these concepts in claude code for someone coming from Cursor? I just feel like the amount of configuration is overwhelming vs. Cursor to accomplish the same things.
Our agentic builder has a single tool. It is called graphql. The agent writes a query and executes it. If the agent does not know how to do particular type of query then it can use graphql introspection. The agent only receives the minimal amount of data as per the graphql query saving valuable tokens. It works better! Not only we don't need to load 50+ tools (our entire SDK) but it also solves the N+1 problem when u…
how is that going to work with my use case, do a web search, do a local api call, do a graphql search, do an integration with slack, do a message etc..
Our agentic builder has a single tool. It is called graphql. The agent writes a query and executes it. If the agent does not know how to do particular type of query then it can use graphql introspection. The agent only receives the minimal amount of data as per the graphql query saving valuable tokens. It works better! Not only we don't need to load 50+ tools (our entire SDK) but it also solves the N+1 problem when u…
Since most of the ontologies I'm using are public, I just have to namedrop them in prompt; no schemas and little structure introspection needed. At worst, it can just walk and dump triples to figure out structure; it's all RDF triples and URIs.
One nice property: using structured outputs, you can constrain outputs of certain queries to only generate valid RDF to avoid syntax errors. Probably can do similar stuff with GraphQL.
Unfortunate that they chose python instead of bash as the wrapper. Bash would have wider interoperability across languages and workflows that don't touch python. It would also expose more performant tools.
Unfortunate that they chose python instead of bash as the wrapper. Bash would have wider interoperability across languages and workflows that don't touch python. It would also expose more performant tools.
Not unfortunate. They know what people are using and went that route.
Unfortunate that they chose python instead of bash as the wrapper. Bash would have wider interoperability across languages and workflows that don't touch python. It would also expose more performant tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not unfortunate. They know what people are using and went that route.
Meanwhile, I have "* Never use Python for anything ever* " in my AGENTS.md.