Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I graded 36 popular MCP servers on agent usability. A third got a D or F

tengli.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: I graded 36 popular MCP servers on agent usability. A third got a D or F

#12

Post by Hitton »

This is stupid analysis. Complaining without nuance about "D004 - parameter has no description" suggests the article was written by an AI agent, because some parameters simply don't need any description. Prime example is "url" parameter explicitly mentioned in the article - unless there are multiple possible url parameters, adding the description just bloats context.

Re: I graded 36 popular MCP servers on agent usability. A third got a D or F

#15

Post by kittikitti »

I'm not going to standardize an MCP server. I come from designing REST API's and the leniency of Python. In comparison to other frameworks, MCP is relatively new and there's valid skepticism because of Anthropic's proprietary schemes. It sounds like AI companies are gatekeeping MCP servers, based on definitions they made up, and can just have their goons go around purity testing them.

Re: I graded 36 popular MCP servers on agent usability. A third got a D or F

#17

Post by tengbyte »

brookst wrote: post #8

> well-documented big catalogs are possible; they're just rare They’re not that rare, it’s just that flat big catalogs don’t work well. The most common failure mode for MCP server design is mapping MCP tools to system APIs. This results in a tool to list files, a tool to rename a file, a tool to copy a file, etc. You can have 100 “tools”, you just need to define 10-12 areas (actual tools in the MCP model) and actions…

[flagged]

Re: I graded 36 popular MCP servers on agent usability. A third got a D or F

#19

Post by tengbyte »

Hitton wrote: post #12

This is stupid analysis. Complaining without nuance about "D004 - parameter has no description" suggests the article was written by an AI agent, because some parameters simply don't need any description. Prime example is "url" parameter explicitly mentioned in the article - unless there are multiple possible url parameters, adding the description just bloats context.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN