‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

You said no MCP

682 points · 362 comments · yarapavan

  1. KronisLV · · focus · HN ↗
    I feel the same way about needing support for sub-agents, those feel pretty foundational to me.

    I suspect that a smart model driving multiple dumber models for work and then using sub-agents with the same smart model for adversarial review will be a pretty common pattern.

    Personally, I got a bit confused about Pi having most of that stuff as plugins since I remember how much of a mess Eclipse was where so much was just loosely fitting together plugins and just went with OpenCode since it covers most of my needs out of the box. Guess that might also be a sign of me getting older, because my IDEs and desktop environments are all closer to stock too.

    1. embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
      Some things are impossible to just tack on or work around though, like MCP, while other things, can be done by just composing stuff.

      Like sub-agents, you could just instruct pi/any harness with a user prompt/system prompt to start new invocations of itself, if you share what the exact command is, and pi or any other harness will do their own poor man's version of sub-agent via standard unix programs.

      1. k__ · · focus · HN ↗
        What would you say is a good harness with subagents?
      2. fwip · · focus · HN ↗
        I found the MCP extension for Pi to work fine.
      3. none_to_remain · · focus · HN ↗
        I had the model write up a pi extension for logging the transcript to the syslog, and all on its own initiative it spawned a subagent to generate test output. It decided to spawn a lighter model for this trivial task, apparently unaware that I can only fit one model at a time so my llama-server ended up thrashing to the lighter model then back to the original model. My own personal n=2 semi- rogue swarm
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.