Live data from Hacker News

MCP is dead?

quandri.io

241–250 of 444 posts

Re: MCP is dead?

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing is that Claude knows the api of Atlassian better than the mcp they provide. Mcp is limited it doesn't have all api calls described.

Is this not just a tooling problem?

As someone who supports Atlassian products; Atlassian is a tooling problem.

Re: MCP is dead?

#242
post #22

I run the team at OpenAI that's responsible for the ChatGPT App Store, Codex plugins, and all things MCP. The thing that all these "MCP is dead" posts are missing is that whether or not MCP is used as a transport protocol is actually completely irrelevant. The reason MCP isn't dead is because practically ~every company on the planet is building an MCP server. I know this because we interact with all of them. Most of…

I think graphql backed by mcp is the technically best solution. Graphql allows an agent to select which fields it wants in context. Graphql is easy to generate clis for / easy to generate libraries for (if we want llms to generate scripts that call tools).

Re: MCP is dead?

#243
post #22

I run the team at OpenAI that's responsible for the ChatGPT App Store, Codex plugins, and all things MCP. The thing that all these "MCP is dead" posts are missing is that whether or not MCP is used as a transport protocol is actually completely irrelevant. The reason MCP isn't dead is because practically ~every company on the planet is building an MCP server. I know this because we interact with all of them. Most of…

Please keep in mind that CLIs do not run on mobile and never will. This is the elephant in the room that nearly everypne seems to be ignoring. This "debate" is built around the assumption that AI is only for at-your-desk work. It's obviously not. Having the ability to mix/match the services you use for everything in your life, whether that's email or social networks or managing your book collection, is going to be a…

> CLIs do not run on mobile and never will

Can you clarify why the never? What's the issue with giving a phone-based AI a sandboxed file system and bash shell?

Re: MCP is dead?

#244
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the current situation is basically that I used Claude to write an MCP server on top of our API. And then I need to occasionally tell it update it match the public doc. > And my reaction is: really? It is not like our API docs are not public. Claude Code created our MCP server with zero instructions beyond what is publicly available. I just told it to read the docs from the net. My reaction to this is.. really? P…

That wouldn't solve the core issue: if Claude makes a mistake during the MCP generaration, it would poison further agentic use. It's adding another failure point to the process for no gain.

No, because as everything which is a part of a release process, you'd have tests.

Re: MCP is dead?

#245
post #22

I run the team at OpenAI that's responsible for the ChatGPT App Store, Codex plugins, and all things MCP. The thing that all these "MCP is dead" posts are missing is that whether or not MCP is used as a transport protocol is actually completely irrelevant. The reason MCP isn't dead is because practically ~every company on the planet is building an MCP server. I know this because we interact with all of them. Most of…

MCP is not an answer to the lack of a CLI or API.

Re: MCP is dead?

#246
post #22

I run the team at OpenAI that's responsible for the ChatGPT App Store, Codex plugins, and all things MCP. The thing that all these "MCP is dead" posts are missing is that whether or not MCP is used as a transport protocol is actually completely irrelevant. The reason MCP isn't dead is because practically ~every company on the planet is building an MCP server. I know this because we interact with all of them. Most of…

> I run the team at OpenAI that's responsible for the ChatGPT App Store, Codex plugins, and all things MCP.

> The reason MCP isn't dead is because practically ~every company on the planet is building an MCP server.

You have drunk the kool aid. No shot ~every company is building an MCP server.

Re: MCP is dead?

#248
post #99
post #53

I never understand the "eats context" argument. Why do you have so many MCP enabled in the first place? Do you actually use them in every project?

So you have to manually enable/disable every MCP? What fun...

You have MCPs disabled by default but turn on the ones you need in specific projects. Set this up once per project.

I use Playwright MCP, but there is absolutely no reason I'd keep it enabled in a Go project.

Re: MCP is dead?

#249
post #226
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would bet that MCP is going to die. The main reason is that it adds another layer (and human) that can, and probably will, get out of sync with the real-world implementation, whether that implementation is an API, web, or a CLI. AI should not be using a protocol or set of instructions that is different from what humans have access to (know and use). Sure, companies want to expose MCP servers because it is the cool…

MCP has a great advantage over agent using cli: MCP is much easier to secure so that it's hardwired that the agent can only call the pre-configured MCP server. We run our agents so that they don't have access to public internet, so they could not run any cli commands. It's all either built-in agent tools, or 3rd party mcp servers. The agents never have access to any credentials, which makes them much more safe to use…

Can you not just install/ restrict the available CLIs in the same way you do with MCPs?

Or what else am I missing about why MCP is more secure than a CLI?

Re: MCP is dead?

#250
post #22

I run the team at OpenAI that's responsible for the ChatGPT App Store, Codex plugins, and all things MCP. The thing that all these "MCP is dead" posts are missing is that whether or not MCP is used as a transport protocol is actually completely irrelevant. The reason MCP isn't dead is because practically ~every company on the planet is building an MCP server. I know this because we interact with all of them. Most of…

> All of those are just implementation details to the much more important point: our AI agents are getting access to services they otherwise would never have had access to.

As in: if your models and agents were as good as you claim them to be, we wouldn't need to re-implement half if our tools and a significant chunk of the web to conform to this vibe designed protocol.

In 99% of cases your AI agents already have all the access. They are just too stupid to do so.

Post reply on HN