Live data from Hacker News

I still prefer MCP over skills

david.coffee

11–20 of 415 posts

Re: I still prefer MCP over skills

#11

This author does not realize that skills can call APIs. The idea that you have to build dedicated CLI apps is not true at all and invalidates the entire article.

Can you clarify what exactly you mean? Skills are markdown files, so they definitely can't call APIs or CLIs. Are you saying that a skill can tell the agent to use curl to call web APIs? Or something different?

Re: I still prefer MCP over skills

#12

Despite thinking this is AI-generated, I agree but everything has a caveat. Skills are good for instilling non-repeatable, yet intuitive or institutional knowledge. MCP’s are great for custom, repeatable tasks. After 5-10 runs of watching my LLM write the same exact script, I just asked it to hardcode the solution and make it a tool. The result is runs are way faster and repeatable.

> Skills are good for instilling non-repeatable, yet intuitive or institutional knowledge.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but can you explain this more? I've been using skills for repeatable tasks. Why an MCP instead?

Re: I still prefer MCP over skills

#14

This author does not realize that skills can call APIs. The idea that you have to build dedicated CLI apps is not true at all and invalidates the entire article.

Can you clarify what exactly you mean? Skills are markdown files, so they definitely can't call APIs or CLIs. Are you saying that a skill can tell the agent to use curl to call web APIs? Or something different?

https://agentskills.io/specification

* references/ Contains additional documentation that agents can read when needed

* scripts/ Contains executable code that agents can run.

* assets/ Contains static resources

Re: I still prefer MCP over skills

#15
The "only skills" people are usually non-technical and the "only CLI" people are often solo builders.

MCP makes a lot of sense for enterprise IMO. Defines auth and interfaces in a way that's a natural extension of APIs.

Re: I still prefer MCP over skills

#16
post #10

I could not agree any less with the author. I don’t want APIs, I want agents to use the same CLI tooling I already use that is locally available. If my agents are using CLI tooling anyways there is no need to add an extra layer via MCP. I don’t want remote MCP calls, I don’t even want remote models but that’s cost prohibitive. If I need to call an API, a skill with existing CLI tooling is more than capable.

Ok, but there are still many environments where an LLM will not have access to a CLI. In those situations, skills calling CLI tools to hook into APIs are DOA.

Re: I still prefer MCP over skills

#18
Anthropic says that Skills and MCPs are complementary, and frankly the pure Skills zealots tend to miss that in enterprise environments you’ll have chatbots or the like that don’t have access to a full CLI. It doesn’t matter if your skills tell the agent exactly what to do if they can’t execute the commands. Also, MCP is better for restricted environments because you know exactly what it can or cannot do. That’s why MCP will exist for some time still. They solve distinct problem sets.

Re: I still prefer MCP over skills

#19

This author does not realize that skills can call APIs. The idea that you have to build dedicated CLI apps is not true at all and invalidates the entire article.

Can you clarify what exactly you mean? Skills are markdown files, so they definitely can't call APIs or CLIs. Are you saying that a skill can tell the agent to use curl to call web APIs? Or something different?

Technically they can at least how I'm using or abusing them - I ride windows so they have a generic powershell script bolted on to handle special API use through the skill to make it easier for the agent to call data up noted in the skill. does it lack full API details? absolutely. I have also a learning skill where if it has to go for a think / fail / try to figure something new out to grow a new skill or update an existing one.

skills to me suck when they are shared with a team - haven't found the secret sauce here to keep these organic skills synced between everyone

Re: I still prefer MCP over skills

#20
I've remained leaning a bit towards MCP until lately. Both have pretty easy ways to call the other (plenty of cli API callers, and tools like mcp-cli for the reverse https://github.com/philschmid/mcp-cli). Skills have really made progressive discovery if cli-tools much better, and MCP design has adapted likewise. I've lightly preferred MCP for formalism, for it feeling more concrete as a thing.

But what really changed my mind is seeing how much more casual scripting the LLMs do these days. They'll build rad unix pipes, or some python or node short scripts. With CLI tools, it all composes: every trick it learns can plug directly into every other capability.

Where-as with MCP, the LLM has to act as the pipe. Tool calls don't compose! It can read something like this tmux skill then just adapt it in all sorts of crazy ways! It can sort of do that with tool calls, but much less so. https://github.com/nickgnd/tmux-mcp

I'd love to see a capnproto capnweb or some such, with third party handoff (apologies Kenton for once again raising 3ph), where a tool call could return a result and we could forward the result to a different LLM, without even waiting for the result to come back. If the LLM could compose tool calls, it would start to have some parity with the composability of the cli+skill. But it doesn't. And as of very recently I've decided that is too strong a selling point to be ignored. I also just like how the cli remains the universe system: if these are so isomorphic as I keep telling myself, what really does the new kid on the block really bring? How much is a new incarnation better if their capabilities are so near? We should keep building cli tools, good cli tools, so that man and machine benefit.

That said I still leave the beads mcp server around. And I turn on the neovim MCP when I want to talk to neovim. Ah well. I should try harder to switch.

Post reply on HN