Improve. the definition structure

OSS Product Help LangChain
,
1

I think LangChain should improve its tool definition structure, like the Vercel AI SDK. This structure is cleaner and JavaScript-friendly.

example:
```const weatherTool = tool({
name: “get weather”,

description: ‘Get the weather in a location’,

inputSchema: z.object({

location: z.string().describe('The location to get the weather for'),

}),

execute: async ({ location }) => {

// Your implementation

return { temperature: 72, conditions: ‘sunny’ };

},

});````

2

Hey, @SheikhAriful! I find them to be quite similar. Here are the two side by side:

Vercel AI SDK

import { tool } from "ai";
import { z } from "zod";

const weatherTool = tool({
  description: "Get the weather in a location",
  inputSchema: z.object({
    location: z.string().describe("The location to get the weather for"),
  }),
  execute: async ({ location }) => ({ temperature: 72, conditions: "sunny" }),
});

LangChain JS / LangGraph JS

import { tool } from "langchain";
import { z } from "zod";

const weatherTool = tool(
  async ({ location }) => ({ temperature: 72, conditions: "sunny" }),
  {
    name: "get_weather",
    description: "Get the weather in a location",
    schema: z.object({
      location: z.string().describe("The location to get the weather for"),
    }),
  }
);

Is there a feature of the AI SDK you feel is currently missing in LangChain?

3

The actual difference is in how we handle JavaScript conventions. In JavaScript, we mostly work with objects, so Vercel designed everything around a single object parameter. LangChain, on the other hand, accepts two separate parameters instead. I think Vercel’s approach is cleaner — and it’s not just Vercel; I’ve noticed most AI SDKs follow a Vercel-like syntax

4

I see. That is a fair, stylistic observation.