Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Mcp-use – Connect any LLM to any MCP

github.com

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: Show HN: Mcp-use – Connect any LLM to any MCP

#21

Huge variety of problems with this for mid-market or enterprise use. This is basically a toy right now and can’t be used for solving repeatable, valuable problems for actual businesses, ie: stuff that matters. One: dependence on langchain. Two: Security? Observability? Three: You have never asked yourself, why would someone want to connect an LLM to infinite random mcp servers. The vast majority (of mcp tools and ser…

Why is dependence on LangChain an issue?

Not that I disagree necessarily, just wondering if there's a consensus that LangChain is too opinionated/bloated/whatever for real industry applications, or if there's some other reason.

Re: Show HN: Mcp-use – Connect any LLM to any MCP

#24
post #2

Hey, this is really cool. But why should I use this and not the official SDK?

As somebody who has done both- mcp-use makes it very very simple.

If you are at all familiar w/ python back-end development, it's literally just as easy use this tool to make an API as it is to put your MCP into claude desktop.

MCP SDK is not hard to do per se... but it's more than a 5 minute job

Re: Show HN: Mcp-use – Connect any LLM to any MCP

#27

Huge variety of problems with this for mid-market or enterprise use. This is basically a toy right now and can’t be used for solving repeatable, valuable problems for actual businesses, ie: stuff that matters. One: dependence on langchain. Two: Security? Observability? Three: You have never asked yourself, why would someone want to connect an LLM to infinite random mcp servers. The vast majority (of mcp tools and ser…

Hey, thanks for your detailed feedback, it's helpful to be challenged. Here are some quick thoughts:

One: We've heard similar feedback on Langchain dependency. We also heard it is still widely used in enterprise settings despite its limitations. We're actively exploring alternatives, but it is a pretty crowded space and we could not find the best alternative yet. I'm curious: is there a specific solution you'd recommend? Shall we have our own LLM layer ?

Two: Agreed on observability client-side, improvements are on our roadmap, though currently prioritized lower based on user needs. Regarding security, we manage server-side risks via sandboxes, tool restrictions, and upcoming access control features. Preventing tool poisoning client-side is something we'll look into further. You have any other specific suggestions client side ?

Three: The "infinite server" scenario is not the main focus on the library, I am sorry if that is how is sounded. It is more of an interesting solution to an interesting problem that we wanted to share.

Four: Totally agree on prioritizing quality over quantity. mcp-use emphasizes flexibility and ease of integration, not necessarily connecting to numerous servers. Reliability is a server-client joint effort, when we work with companies this is one of our main focuses.

Five: While similar solutions exist, we've found our approach resonates well with users based on adoption and feedback. That said, this is not the end of the road, we are working and talking with many companies and solving many of the issues you mentioned, most are not so easy to integrate in the library and we offer only as part of our cloud offering.

Thanks again for challenging our thinking! And please if you have inputs it'd be great to have them

Re: Show HN: Mcp-use – Connect any LLM to any MCP

#29
post #25

How does the sandboxing work? Is it cross platform? Options for filesystem/netork?

For sanboxing we are using E2B, which spins up a sandbox for the server execution, we run the mcp server command inside the sandbox and expose the stdio stream as an sse from the sandbox remote. You could potentially replace the E2B sanbox with any other. Unfortunately, mcp servers that need access to your filesystem cannot be run on a sanbdox, I believe you could do it with the network, what would be the use case?

Re: Show HN: Mcp-use – Connect any LLM to any MCP

#30

Great idea! Definitely going to use it. What are some good reasons to prefer this over fastmcp clients? https://gofastmcp.com/clients/client

Hey, thanks! Please let us know if we can help with anything once you get started. FastMCP is very good at servers, they just recently started to provide a client.

The client is comparable, but we support multiple connections at once, we handle task management for you (so you do not need to async with in our code), and we have an agent that you can get started with. Also I do not think FastMCP will go into the agent side of things in the Agent - Client - Server spectrum, so if you need support on that side (integrations with other frameworks, providers etc) you'll find it here :)

Post reply on HN