11–19 of 19 posts
Is anyone forcing you to use MCP? You don't need it. If you can't see the benefit of it, don't use it.
It's why I asked the question. Maybe I missed something.
Whats an mcp ? Mcp connectors Iv heard of
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's why I asked the question. Maybe I missed something.
MCP is an API. The biggest difference is that it defines some primitives that AI clients know how to implement beforehand so every MCP server works similarly, otherwise each API implements its own way to list the tools available, change/react to changes, authorization, session management, etc. MCP *is* an API.
If you're needing to give the model direct and broad access to your SqlServer instance...I don't get it.
Dedicated customer facing API is like whitelisting approved actions; MCP feels like getting an LLM to enforce a complex blacklist.
What it does well though is to keep things relatively simple. It is also good for things that takes time to return.
I find it competitive also for non LLM usages. I have done some PoCs with MCP instead of REST/OpenAPI, or GraphQL, or Protobuf and I liked MCP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MCP is an API. The biggest difference is that it defines some primitives that AI clients know how to implement beforehand so every MCP server works similarly, otherwise each API implements its own way to list the tools available, change/react to changes, authorization, session management, etc. MCP *is* an API.
I'm thinking more as a provider. Why put a model on my side to handle permissions/scope/auth/actions when thats already handled (or easy enough to spin up)by a rest-inspired http api? If you're needing to give the model direct and broad access to your SqlServer instance...I don't get it. Dedicated customer facing API is like whitelisting approved actions; MCP feels like getting an LLM to enforce a complex blacklist.
Now every website can create tools that gpt can use. So it's possible to have your users use AI without the need to pay for tokens.