Minimal HITL seam for external consumers: should ActionRequest carry tool_call_id?

[Rul1an (Rul1an)]

Hi! Really enjoying building with Deep Agents. Wanted to share one small thing we hit around the human-in-the-loop seam, in case it is useful signal.

We built a tiny external-consumer adapter around one paused approval flow. The pause-only artifact comes together nicely, the continuation anchor reads cleanly out of agent.get_state(config), and we can emit everything before resume is ever called. That part was a joy to work against.

One small friction point. To fill in tool_call_id on our review artifact we have to correlate across two public surfaces:

• HITLRequest.action_requests carries name, args, and description.
• The originating tool_call_id is only reachable via agent.get_state(config) on the last AIMessage.tool_calls[*].id.

So the adapter bridges those two surfaces to emit one bounded tool_call_id for review purposes. It works fine, it just feels worth checking with you.

Question: for external HITL consumers, is that cross-surface correlation the intended path, or would it be reasonable for ActionRequest itself to carry the originating tool_call_id?

Thanks for building this, it has been great to work with.

[Yokubjon (yakubka)]

Good catch. Carrying tool_call_id through the ActionRequest is the right move for exactly the reason you describe: when the consumer reconstructs the ToolMessage to send back on resume, it needs that ID to match the original tool call in the message history. Without it, the paused state has all the data except the one field that ties the approval back to the specific call.

The workaround today is to pull tool_call_id from the raw interrupt value in the thread state:

state = agent.get_state(config)
interrupt_val = state.tasks[0].interrupts[0].value
tool_call_id = interrupt_val.get("tool_call_id")

The exact shape of interrupt_val depends on how the interrupt was created, so it is worth printing it once to confirm the key name.

On resume, pass it back as:

agent.invoke(
    Command(resume={"approved": True, "tool_call_id": tool_call_id}),
    config,
)

Exposing tool_call_id as a first-class field on ActionRequest would make this cleaner. If you opened an issue or PR for that, referencing this discussion would help the maintainers see the use case.