Comment by didibus

3 months ago

> MCP was a really shitty attempt at building a plugin framework

Can you go more in depth? The protocol is relatively simple, what about it you feel is "shitty" as a plugin framework?

16 comments

didibus

Reply
paulddraper  3 months ago

The hate for MCP here is absurd.

It's JSON-RPC, with some descriptors.

And some comments about OAuth 2.

The value is in the consensus. You can make a tool that agents can connect to with no apriori knowledge.

  • rcarmo  3 months ago

    Actually, MCP wastes a lot of tokens when compared to regular tool calling. You might not notice it on more trendy models with large contexts, but for those of us trying to use locked down/local/cheap models it makes very little sense.

    Also, MCP creates a new problem: providing the model with too much context when trying to combine tools across multiple servers. It works OK with small, very focused servers (like helpers for a specific data set), but if you try to mix and match servers things get out of hand really quickly and the entire workflow becomes very unreliable—too many options to digest and pursue, just like humans.

    • didibus  3 months ago

      Is that just bad implementation? Where are the wasted tokens?

      I noticed your second issue, but to me it's just from bad implementation. For some reason people keep exposing generic overlapping tools from multiple MCP servers.

      I don't know that MCP causes this issue, any vendor offering a "tools API" if they shove to many APIs it would bloat things up.

      7 replies →

  • manbitesdog  3 months ago

    Things like OpenAPI have existed for 15 years now and they also offer standarization.

    The value on MCP is not on its features or innovation, but on the rate of adoption it has had. Companies have now an incentive to open, document and standarize their APIs to enable this new distribution channel.