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

Apideck CLI – An AI-agent interface with much lower context consumption than MCP

apideck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 149 posts

Re: Apideck CLI – An AI-agent interface with much lower context consumption than MCP

#74

Post by mbreese »

krzyk wrote: post #59
yoyohello13 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a weird trend. I see the appeal of Skills over MCP when you are just a solo dev doing your work. MCP is incredibly useful in an organization context when you need to add controls and process. Both are useful. I feel like the anti-MCP push is coming from people who don't need to work in a large org.

Not sure. Our big org, banned MCPs because they are unsafe, and they have no way to enforce only certain MCPs (in github copilot).

Isn’t it possible to proxy LLM communication and strip out unwanted MCP tool calls from conversations? I mean if you’re going to ban MCPs, you’re probably banning any CLI tooling too, right?

Re: Apideck CLI – An AI-agent interface with much lower context consumption than MCP

#75

Post by toomuchtodo »

thenewnewguy wrote: post #64
krzyk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure. Our big org, banned MCPs because they are unsafe, and they have no way to enforce only certain MCPs (in github copilot).

But skills where you tell the LLM to shell out to some random command are safe? I'm not sure I understand the logic.

You can control an execution context in a superior manner than a rando MCP server.

MCP Security 2026: 30 CVEs in 60 Days - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47356600 - March 2026

(securing this use case is a component of my work in a regulated industry and enterprise)

Re: Apideck CLI – An AI-agent interface with much lower context consumption than MCP

#77

Post by systima »

mbreese wrote: post #74
krzyk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure. Our big org, banned MCPs because they are unsafe, and they have no way to enforce only certain MCPs (in github copilot).

Isn’t it possible to proxy LLM communication and strip out unwanted MCP tool calls from conversations? I mean if you’re going to ban MCPs, you’re probably banning any CLI tooling too, right?

Maybe https://usepec.eu ?

Re: Apideck CLI – An AI-agent interface with much lower context consumption than MCP

#79

Post by robot-wrangler »

> Limit integrations → agent can only talk to a few services

The idea that people see this as one horn of a trilemma instead of just good practice is a bit strange. Who would complain that every import isn't a star-import? Bring in what you need at first, then load new things dynamically with good semantics for cascade / drill-down. Let's maybe abandon simple classics like namespacing and the unix philsophy for the kitchen-sink approach after the kitchen-sink thing is shown to work.

Re: Apideck CLI – An AI-agent interface with much lower context consumption than MCP

#80

Post by ewild »

caust1c wrote: post #22

I'm getting tired of everyone saying "MCP is dead, use CLIs!". Yes, MCP eats up context windows, but agents can also be smarter about how they load the MCP context in the first place, using similar strategy to skills. The problem with tossing it out entirely is that it leaves a lot more questions for handling security. When using skills, there's no implicit way to be able to apply policies in the sane way across many…

I feel like I don't fully understand mcp. I've done research on it but I definitely couldn't explain it. I get lost on the fact that to my knowledge it's a server with API endpoints that are well defined into a json schema then sent the to LLM and the LLM parses that and decides which endpoints to hit (I'm aware some llms use smart calling now so they load the tool name and description but nothing else until it's called). How exactly are you doing the process of stopping the LLM from using web search after it hits a certain endpoint in your MCP server? Or is this referring strictly to when you own the whole workflow where you can then deny websearch capabilities on the next LLM step?

Are there any good docs youve liked to learn about it, or good open source projects you used to get familiar? I would like to learn more

Post reply on HN