‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

MCP was always a bad idea?

335 points · 331 comments · maharshi365

  1. simonw · · focus · HN ↗
    This article entirely misses the value that MCP brings today.

    Sure, there's almost no reason to use MCPs if you are running a full-blown terminal agent (Claude Code, Codex, Meta Muse, OpenClaw etc) with unfettered internet access - just let it call APIs directly.

    If you want to operate something that's less YOLO than that, you'll find yourself wanting:

    1. Control over exactly which external services it can access

    2. A way to handle authentication that doesn't allow the agent to directly access API keys

    3. A sensible UI to allow users to connect and authenticate further services

    4. Strong audit logging for what's going on

    MCP makes all of that so much easier to provide.

    Thinking MCP is obsolete because full coding agents don't need it misses out on all of the other things we might want to build.

    1. viccis · · focus · HN ↗
      Exactly. A lot of people complaining about MCP are doing so because their only interactions with LLMs are via big batteries including code harnesses and don't understand what kind of (usually much more domain-specific) agentic systems are being built. For example, "CLI vs MCP" doesn't make any sense whatsoever if the agent doesn't have access to a CLI!

      MCP suffers from its harebrained choice early on to load everything into context up front.

      1. williamse · · focus · HN ↗

        [dead]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.