Replies: 2 comments 3 replies
-
Beside XML parsing I think it's important to set up requirements in implementations of the tools, for example some tools are missing :
Keeping a list of supported models would be nice, maybe with feature level tool support (parallel , single tool calling) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think ideally it should parse the XML and transform to JSON so that the (generic) JSON parser can parse that. That would make streaming tool call content work as well. In theory anyway. From what I gathered while trying to make that work with the XML PR it seems that there's a whole "healing" system implemented for JSON that (seemingly) handles the streaming content for tool calls. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi everyone,
As we continue to expand tool calling support for various language models in llama.cpp, we're encountering significant challenges with XML-based tool calling formats. Developers have been working on implementing support for models like GLM-4.5 and Qwen3-Coder, but we're facing several consistent issues:
We believe it's time to establish a more standardized approach to XML tool call parsing that can be extended for different models while maintaining consistency. This would help:
We'd like to invite the community to discuss:
Let's work together to create a robust, extensible foundation for XML-based tool calling in llama.cpp. Please share your experiences, ideas, and suggestions below!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions