‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

You said no MCP

682 points · 362 comments · yarapavan

  1. wren6991 · · focus · HN ↗
    > And while we could have just wired up the metadata to enable better MCP extensions, we also think that MCP with Codemode solves quite a few of the issues that it traditionally had.

    There's just something that bothers me about this. Normally if LLMs want to compose multiple operations, they have the perfect tool for this: bash, or whatever other OS shell is available. It's why I was always confused by Codemode-type constructs for direct chaining of tool calls; see also the way highly-RL'd modern models will fall back to sed or python for complex file edits.

    It seems like Codemode is raised here as the perfect tool for chaining or composing MCPs, but isn't that backwards? LLMs are already given the perfect tool for that, and the problem is that MCPs aren't exposed to that tool.

    1. imtringued · · focus · HN ↗
      Uh, you just figured out their motivation and you somehow came to the opposite conclusion?

      Bash is an interface to operate Linux computers. It's not a web interface at all. It's the worst interface for the web.

      Code mode is just them running JavaScript for web based APIs. They are using the web native programming language for web tasks. It's actually completely logical once that is clear.

      Bash for the web is a terrible idea.

      1. wren6991 · · focus · HN ↗
        Right, because MCP != web. In fact most of my exposure to MCP has been local tools. Also, for context, we're talking about a coding agent harness that runs on a local machine, and Codemode applies to all of its tools, not just MCP.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.