Generate tool outputSchema in serialization mode

[guptaishaan]

Fixes #3644

Motivation and Context

outputSchema was generated in pydantic's default validation mode, but structuredContent is dumped in serialization mode with by_alias=True. A serialization_alias or @computed_field on a tool's return model therefore appeared in structuredContent but not (or under a different name) in outputSchema. Clients that validate the result against the schema rejected it.

The fix passes mode="serialization" to json_schema in FuncMetadata.model_post_init.

Thanks to @jayzuccarelli for the report and repro.

How Has This Been Tested?

• Added a regression test with a serialization_alias field and a @computed_field. It fails without the fix and passes with it.
• pytest tests/server tests/client: 2161 passed, 1 xfailed.
• ruff check and ruff format --check are clean.
• Run on Linux with CPU only. I did not run the rest of the test suite.

Breaking Changes

outputSchema for models with serialization aliases or computed fields changes to match what the tool already returned.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation update

Checklist

• I am assigned to the linked issue (or it is labeled help wanted, or I'm a maintainer)
• I have disclosed any AI assistance and can explain the change in my own words
• I have read the MCP Documentation
• My code follows the repository's style guidelines
• New and existing tests pass locally
• I have added appropriate error handling
• I have added or updated documentation as needed

Additional context

AI disclosure: this change was investigated and written by an automated Claude agent, and the diff is small enough to review in full.

[github-actions]

This PR has been closed automatically. This repo only keeps pull requests open when they come from a maintainer, or from a contributor a maintainer has assigned to the linked issue, and you aren't currently assigned to #3644.

If a maintainer assigns you to #3644, this PR reopens on its own and there's nothing more you need to do here. Assignment is a maintainer call based on capacity; comments that only ask to be assigned don't factor in. What does help is engaging on the issue itself by confirming the repro, explaining why it matters for your use case, or describing the approach you'd take.

You're welcome to keep pushing commits here (just avoid force-pushing, since GitHub can't reopen a rewritten branch), but that on its own won't get the PR reviewed or the issue assigned, and realistically most auto-closed PRs stay closed. There's no need to open a new PR either way.

CONTRIBUTING.md has the full reasoning, but in short:

• We're a small team with very little capacity to review community PRs right now.
• Many recent PRs are AI-generated with little human review, and reviewing one carefully still costs a maintainer as much time as it ever did. A well-described issue is usually more useful to us than the code.

Maintainers: reopen, remove missing-issue-link, or add bypass-issue-check to override.