Files
PaperClipAI/server/src/services/tool-runtime-metrics.ts
T
DottaandPaperclip cfa5e0704e feat(mcp) [split 3/8]: add tool access policy core (#9558)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 3/8 and focuses on tool-access policy and
authorization core
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: Authorization, OAuth binding, secret projection, content
guards, and policy evaluation need a security-reviewable server
boundary.
- Proposed solution: Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the
runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without
registering the routes in the application.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/02-schema-shared`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: SecurityEngineer for authz, OAuth, secrets, and
content guards; Greptile on every PR.

## What Changed

- Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service
dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the
routes in the application.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.

## Verification

- `pnpm typecheck`
- Focused server Vitest run — 4 files, 143 tests passed

## Risks

- Authorization bugs could permit cross-company or over-broad tool
access; the PR remains inert until PR 4 wiring and requires dedicated
security review.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge


## Stack Coordination

- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-07-14 14:22:39 -05:00

58 lines
1.5 KiB
TypeScript

import { sql } from "drizzle-orm";
import type { Db } from "@paperclipai/db";
import { toolRuntimeMetricCounters } from "@paperclipai/db";
export const TOOL_RUNTIME_AUDIT_WRITE_FAILURE_METRIC = "audit_write_failed";
function minuteBucket(date: Date): Date {
const bucket = new Date(date);
bucket.setSeconds(0, 0);
return bucket;
}
export async function incrementToolRuntimeMetricCounter(
db: Db,
input: {
companyId: string;
metric: string;
at?: Date;
},
) {
const at = input.at ?? new Date();
await db
.insert(toolRuntimeMetricCounters)
.values({
companyId: input.companyId,
metric: input.metric,
bucketStartAt: minuteBucket(at),
count: 1,
createdAt: at,
updatedAt: at,
})
.onConflictDoUpdate({
target: [
toolRuntimeMetricCounters.companyId,
toolRuntimeMetricCounters.metric,
toolRuntimeMetricCounters.bucketStartAt,
],
set: {
count: sql`${toolRuntimeMetricCounters.count} + 1`,
updatedAt: at,
},
});
}
export async function recordToolRuntimeAuditWriteFailure(db: Db, companyId: string) {
try {
await incrementToolRuntimeMetricCounter(db, {
companyId,
metric: TOOL_RUNTIME_AUDIT_WRITE_FAILURE_METRIC,
});
} catch (error) {
console.error("[tool-runtime-metrics] Failed to record audit write failure counter", {
companyId,
error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error),
});
}
}