Skip to content

Python: Validate for missing or unexpected params from model #12071

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 19, 2025

Conversation

moonbox3
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation and Context

I've experienced times where even though we're sending the required params to the model, for example input_text, the model is sending back the tool call argument as text. Telling the model that we received an unexpected param and/or are missing one helps it re-send the correct one for function calling.

Description

Improve the function calling path.

Contribution Checklist

@moonbox3 moonbox3 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 15, 2025 04:26
@markwallace-microsoft markwallace-microsoft added the python Pull requests for the Python Semantic Kernel label May 15, 2025
@moonbox3 moonbox3 self-assigned this May 15, 2025
@markwallace-microsoft
Copy link
Member

markwallace-microsoft commented May 15, 2025

Python Unit Test Overview

Tests Skipped Failures Errors Time
3584 18 💤 0 ❌ 0 🔥 1m 44s ⏱️

@moonbox3 moonbox3 added this pull request to the merge queue May 19, 2025
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 19, 2025
### Motivation and Context

I've experienced times where even though we're sending the required
params to the model, for example `input_text`, the model is sending back
the tool call argument as `text`. Telling the model that we received an
unexpected param and/or are missing one helps it re-send the correct one
for function calling.

<!-- Thank you for your contribution to the semantic-kernel repo!
Please help reviewers and future users, providing the following
information:
  1. Why is this change required?
  2. What problem does it solve?
  3. What scenario does it contribute to?
  4. If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here.
-->

### Description

Improve the function calling path.

<!-- Describe your changes, the overall approach, the underlying design.
These notes will help understanding how your code works. Thanks! -->

### Contribution Checklist

<!-- Before submitting this PR, please make sure: -->

- [X] The code builds clean without any errors or warnings
- [X] The PR follows the [SK Contribution
Guidelines](https://github.com/microsoft/semantic-kernel/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)
and the [pre-submission formatting
script](https://github.com/microsoft/semantic-kernel/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#development-scripts)
raises no violations
- [X] All unit tests pass, and I have added new tests where possible
- [X] I didn't break anyone 😄
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks May 19, 2025
@moonbox3 moonbox3 added this pull request to the merge queue May 19, 2025
Merged via the queue into microsoft:main with commit 519b607 May 19, 2025
28 checks passed
@moonbox3 moonbox3 deleted the func-call-error-handling branch May 19, 2025 05:20
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Sprint: Done in Semantic Kernel May 19, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
python Pull requests for the Python Semantic Kernel
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants