I still think it's better to have MCP, after all, it's unrealistic for any company to integrate all functions into one
What if you don't need MCP at all?
81–90 of 194 posts
Re: What if you don't need MCP at all?
#82Re: What if you don't need MCP at all?
#83So I don't disagree with any of the criticisms of MCPs but no one here has mentioned why they are useful, and I'm not sure that everyone is aware that MCP is actually just a wrapper over existing cli/API: 1. Claude Code is aware of what MCPs it has access to at all times. 2. Adding an MCP is like adding to the agent's actuators/vocabulary/tools because unlike cli tools or APIs you don't have to constantly remind it w…
> 3. This effect is _significantly_ stronger than putting info about available API/cli into CLAUDE.md.
What? Why?
> unlike cli tools or APIs you don't have to constantly remind it what MCPs it has available
I think I'm missing something, because I thought this is what MCP does, literally. It just injects the instructions about what tools it has and how to use them into the context window. With MCP it just does it for you rather than you having to add a bit to your CLAUDE.md. What am I misunderstanding?
Re: What if you don't need MCP at all?
#84So I don't disagree with any of the criticisms of MCPs but no one here has mentioned why they are useful, and I'm not sure that everyone is aware that MCP is actually just a wrapper over existing cli/API: 1. Claude Code is aware of what MCPs it has access to at all times. 2. Adding an MCP is like adding to the agent's actuators/vocabulary/tools because unlike cli tools or APIs you don't have to constantly remind it w…
[deleted]
Re: What if you don't need MCP at all?
#85So I don't disagree with any of the criticisms of MCPs but no one here has mentioned why they are useful, and I'm not sure that everyone is aware that MCP is actually just a wrapper over existing cli/API: 1. Claude Code is aware of what MCPs it has access to at all times. 2. Adding an MCP is like adding to the agent's actuators/vocabulary/tools because unlike cli tools or APIs you don't have to constantly remind it w…
>This effect is _significantly_ stronger than putting info about available API/cli into CLAUDE.md.
No it's not.
Honestly this conversation is extremely weird to me because somehow people are gravely misunderstanding what MCP even purports to do, let alone what it actually CAN do in the most ideal situation.
It is a protocol and while the merits of that protocol is certainly under active discussion it's irrelevant because you keep adding qualities about the protocol that it cannot deliver on.
Just same facts to help steer this conversation correctly, and maybe help your understanding on what is actually going:
* All LLM's/major models have function & tool calling built in.
* Your LLMs/models do not have any knowledge on MCP, nor have they been trained on it.
* MCP exists, at least the claim, is to help standardize the LIFECYCLE of the tool call.
* MCP does not augment or enhance the ability of LLM's in any form.
* MCP does not allow you to extend agents. That's an implicit feature.
* If you have access to "X" (using your example), you don't need anything that obeys the MCP standard.
MCP at best is for developers and tool developers. Your model does not need an MCP server or client or anything else MCP related to do what is already been trained to do.
>I would personally prefer some other method but having a way to make agents extensible is extremely useful.
They already are. MCP does not help with this.
Re: What if you don't need MCP at all?
#86So I don't disagree with any of the criticisms of MCPs but no one here has mentioned why they are useful, and I'm not sure that everyone is aware that MCP is actually just a wrapper over existing cli/API: 1. Claude Code is aware of what MCPs it has access to at all times. 2. Adding an MCP is like adding to the agent's actuators/vocabulary/tools because unlike cli tools or APIs you don't have to constantly remind it w…
MCP is simply a standardized RPC protocol for LLMs.
That's it.
The value is in all the usual features of standardization -- plug-and-play, observability, pass-through modifications, etc.
Re: What if you don't need MCP at all?
#87MCP was a really shitty attempt at building a plugin framework that was vague enough to lure people into and then allow other companies to build plugin platforms to take care of the MCP non-sense. "What is MCP, what does it bring to the table? Who knows. What does it do? The LLM stuff! Pay us $10 a month thanks!" LLM's have function / tool calling built into them. No major models have any direct knowledge of MCP. Not…
> No major models have any direct knowledge of MCP.
Claude and ChatGPT both support MCP, as does the OpenAI Agents SDK.
(If you mean the LLM itself, it is "known" at least as much as any other protocol. For whatever that means.)
Re: What if you don't need MCP at all?
#88If I may make a suggestion, many problems folks face with MCP would be solved if their agents were JIT compiled, not ran in a static while loop.
We've been developing this in case folks are interested: https://github.com/stanford-mast/a1
Re: What if you don't need MCP at all?
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah there's no there there when it comes to MCP. It's crazy to me that the world bought into the idea when the "spec" literally boils down to "have your server give the LLM some json". Just illustrates how powerful it is to attach names to things, especially in a hypestorm in which everyone is already frothing at the mouth and reason is hard to come by. Give people some word they can utter to help them sound like th…
"Have your XYZ give the LLM some JSON" is pretty close to how all tool calling works with or without MCP.
What next you are going to tell me rest and async are implemented in code?! And not just willed into existence by the compiler!
Re: What if you don't need MCP at all?
#90MCP was a really shitty attempt at building a plugin framework that was vague enough to lure people into and then allow other companies to build plugin platforms to take care of the MCP non-sense. "What is MCP, what does it bring to the table? Who knows. What does it do? The LLM stuff! Pay us $10 a month thanks!" LLM's have function / tool calling built into them. No major models have any direct knowledge of MCP. Not…
probably easier to just tell people: You want MCP? Add a "description" field to your rest API that describes how to call it. That's all it's doing. Just plain ole context pollution. World could be better served by continuing to build out the APIs that exist.
Sometimes the actions you want to perform does not map cleanly into one or two API calls, or would be too messy to assume correct parsing. Maybe your UI is fine POSTing to /users and PUTing to /groups or whatever but giving the LLM a direct CreateUserAndAddToGroup action simplifies the task and keeps context cleaner.