Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically MCP is little more than a brand name for "APIs LLM's can use". This means more services are creating APIs, because xyz company who's never been super tech forward doesn't want their tools to be obsolete when everyone uses agents. Overall, I am in favor of this goal. I'm not sure this is the protocol I'd choose to accomplish it, but it's the one people hear about, and the one they're using.
"and the one they're using." no it's not. Agents are just making REST calls and that's it. The best thing a company can do to make their stuff 'agent ready' is to make sure the lllm.txt docs are clear-cut and ready for the AI with clear instructions for agentic use. 'MCP' is frankly a hurdle. Now - it probably does make sense to add MCP, because it's not expensive at all, and some will like that use case, it maybe ga…
* Internal services that never had real APIs are getting them retrofitted via the MCP layer
* MCP servers can run with dedicated service accounts that assume-role to a safe(r) subset of the calling user's permissions
The second one addresses a much deeper architectural chasm. We want to have our agents carry nearly-the-same-but-not-the-most-dangerous permissions as we do. No regulated business can risk unleashing agents with zero judgement capacity to wreck their systems, and on the other hand the existing identity systems are not geared for real-time dynamically adjusted user permissions. The need for so called "agent-aware IAM" is urgent. So instead of letting users connect to the internal APIs directly with their full suite of powers, MCP servers act as stand-ins for API gateways.
MCPs are not as flexible as full-fledged CLI tools, and that's a bit of a shame. But they can also become identity-aware proxies that enforce the intended permissions for agent-safe use. It will probably take years before IAM systems can adapt to the needs of the new world, and it will take another DECADE after that for the improved IAM systems to become universally available across the larger enterprises. So in a big way I agree with you:
> MCP is a 'weak externalization' - people are using it because others are using it, and it's a 'workable' but 'not strong' solution.
"Workable" is a load-bearing term. MCP servers are by no means perfect, but they are good enough for specific needs and allow to move the balancing point as needed while the world catches up.
I'm an engineer and prefer CLI or raw API access 99% of the time. But I also have decades of scars from infosec. The single biggest security threat for a business used to be an employee who could not get their job done. They found ways to work around the roadblocks. These days the single biggest threat is an employee who can not get their job done, but has an infinitely patient agent with vast latent capabilities at their disposal.