They are pitching this as complementary to the MCP [0], but I don't see it. What is the value in agents communicating in agents as opposed to just treating other agents as tools? [0]: https://google.github.io/A2A/#/topics/a2a_and_mcp
They are thinking about Enterprises. Shirley from accounting isn't going to install an mcp service to pull the receipt photos from Dropbox and upload them to SAP/Concur (expense reimbursement)
I think that's true in the same way Shirley from accounting isn't going to setup an OAuth token to allow her productivity app to access her calendar. With the right abstractions she can do that without needing to understand what she is doing technically
It's shown in the link below. It's kind of crazy that they have this huge corporate announcement with 50 logos for something that under the hood seems sort of arbitrary and very fragile, and is probably very sensitive to things like exact word choice and punctuation. There will be effects like bots that say "please" and "thank you" to each other getting measurably better results. https://google.github.io/A2A/#/docume…
Hi there (I work on a2a) - can you explain the concern a bit more? We'd be happy to look. A2A is a conduit for agents to speak in their native modalities. From the receiving agent implementation point of view, there shouldn't be a difference in "speaking" to a user/human-in-the-loop and another agent. I'm not aware of anything in the protocol that is sensitive to the content. A2A has 'Messages' and 'Artifacts' to dis…
Some of the research I want to show you is, although technically public, very relevant for malware development, especially in worming payloads that are spread by exposed agents to other exposed agents. It's not secret information but I don't want to make it easy for script kiddies to skip 4+ years of studying engineering and the associated learning about ethics. Can I contact you directly in some way? Thanks.