In the same way that crypto folks speedran "why we have finance regulations and standards", LLM folks are now speedrunning "how to build software paradigms".
The concept they're trying to accomplish (expose possibly remote functions to a caller in an interrogable manner) has plenty of existing examples in DLLs, gRPC, SOAP, IDL, dCOM, etc, but they don't seem to have learned from any of them, let alone be aware that they exist.
Give it more than a couple months though and I think we'll see it mature some more. We just got their auth patterns to use existing rails and concepts, just have to eat the rest of the camel.
ethbr1 · 2h ago
> Give it more than a couple months though and I think we'll see it mature some more.
Or like the early Python ecosystem, mistakes will become ossified at the bottom layers of the stack, as people rapidly build higher level tools that depend on them.
Except unlike early Python, the AI ecosystem community has no excuse, BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF THE EXACT MISTAKES THEY'RE MAKING.
volemo · 47m ago
Could you throw on a couple of examples of calcified early mistakes of Python? GIL is/was one, I presume?
Doxin · 36m ago
Possibly packaging too? though lately that has improved to the point where I'd not really consider it ossified at all.
fullstackchris · 22m ago
> early mistakes of Python?
Python.
wunderwuzzi23 · 1h ago
Your comment reminds me that when I first wrote about MCP it reminded me of COM/DCOM and how this was a bit of a nightmare, and we ended up with the infamous "DLL Hell"...
To this date I have not found a good explanation what an MCP is.
What is it in old dev language?
mondrian · 1h ago
It's a read/write protocol for making external data/services available to a LLM. You can write a tool/endpoint to the MCP protocol and plug it into Claude Desktop, for example. Claude Desktop has MCP support built-in and automatically queries your MCP endpoint to discover its functionality, and makes those functions available to Claude by including their descriptions in the prompt. Claude can then instruct Claude Desktop to call those functions as it sees fit. Claude Desktop will call the functions and then include the results in the prompt, allowing Claude to generate with relevant data in context.
Since Claude Desktop has MCP support built-in, you can just plug off the shelf MCP endpoints into it. Like you could plug your Gmail account, and your Discord, and your Reddit into Claude Desktop provided that MCP integrations exist for those services. So you can tell Claude "look up my recent activity on reddit and send a summary email to my friend Bob about it" or whatever, and Claude will accomplish that task using the available MCPs. There's like a proliferation of MCP tools and marketplaces being built.
fendy3002 · 34m ago
If you know JSON-RPC: it's a JSON-RPC wrapper exposed for AI use and discovery.
If you know REST / http request:
it's single endpoint-only, partitioned / routed by single "type" or "method" parameter, with some different specification, for AI.
kaoD · 1h ago
In a nutshell: RPC with builtin discoverability for LLMs.
jimmySixDOF · 1h ago
old dev language is deterministic, llm in the loop now so the language is stochastic.
_raz · 1h ago
A RPC standard that plays nicely with LLMs?
victorbjorklund · 1h ago
self documenting API
matchagaucho · 4h ago
Also missing in these strict, declarative protocols is a reliance on latent space, and the semantic strengths of LLMs.
Is it sufficient to put a agents.json file in the root of the /.well-known web folder and let agents just "figure it out" through semantic dialogue?
This forces the default use of HTTP as Agent stdio.
MuffinFlavored · 4h ago
Isn't MPC based on JSON-RPC?
_raz · 4h ago
Yes, the protocol seems fine to me in and of itself. It's the transport portion that seems to be a dumpster fire on the HTTP side of things.
koakuma-chan · 1h ago
This article feels like an old timer who knows WebSockets just doesn't want to learn what SSE is. I support the decision to ditch WebSockets because WebSockets would only add extra bloat and complexity to your server, whereas SSE is just HTTP. I don't understand though why have "stdio" transport if you could just run an HTTP server locally.
fendy3002 · 22m ago
HTTP call may be blocked by firewalls even internally, and it's overkill to force stdio apps to expose http endpoints for this case only.
As in, how MCP client can access `git` command without stdio? You can run a wrapper server for that or use stdio instead
koakuma-chan · 15m ago
> As in, how MCP client can access `git` command without stdio?
MCP clients don't access any commands. MCP clients access tools that MCP servers expose.
foobarian · 4h ago
Must have used GraphQL as a role model no doubt
hirsin · 4h ago
Indeed! But seemingly only for the actual object representation - it's a start, and I wonder if JSON is uniquely suited to LLMs because it's so text-first.
sitkack · 4h ago
Hey, at least they didn't use yaml-rpc.
_raz · 4h ago
toml-rpc anyone? :)
neuroelectron · 4h ago
I think JSON is preferred because it adds more complexity.
sroussey · 1h ago
I think it works because json is verbose and reinforces what everything is in each record.
visarga · 1h ago
From this point of view XML offers all that and named brackets.
sroussey · 23m ago
True. Even better with inline attributes.
immibis · 4h ago
I understand those with experience have found that XML works better because it's more redundant.
wisemang · 3h ago
Is it the redundancy? Or is it because markup is a more natural way to annotate language, which obviously is what LLMs are all about?
Genuinely curious, I don’t know the answer. But intuitively JSON is nice for easy to read payloads for transport but to be able to provide rich context around specific parts of text seems right up XML’s alley?
solidasparagus · 1h ago
Or is is because most text in existence is XML - or more specifically HTML.
giantrobot · 2h ago
The lack of inline context is a failing of JSON and a very useful feature of XML.
Two simple but useful examples would be inline markup to define a series of numbers as a date or telephone number or a particular phrase tagged as being a different language from the main document. Inline semantic tags would let LLMs better understand the context of those tokens. JSON can't really do that while it's a native aspect of XML.
snthpy · 3h ago
Bravo. Agree with both of your examples.
aristofun · 1h ago
This is a part of the bigger problem. Near all of AI is done by mathematicians, (data) scientists, students and amateur enthusiasts. Not by professional software engineers.
This is why nearly everything looks like a one weekend pet project by the standards of software engineering.
doug_durham · 12m ago
Speak for yourself. I see the majority of work being done by professional software engineers.
aristofun · 3m ago
Any popular examples to support your claim?
My claim is supported by the post article and many points there, for example. Another example is my own experience working with python ecosystem and ai/ml libraries in particular. With rare exceptions (like pandas) it is mostly garbage from DevX perspective (in comparison of course).
But I admit my exposure is very limited. I don’t work in ai area professionally (which is another example of my point btw, lol))
_QrE · 4h ago
Agreed with basically the entire article. Also happy to hear that someone else was as bewildered as me when they visited the MCP site and they found nothing of substance. RFCs can be a pain to read, but they're much better than 'please just use our SDK library'.
dlandis · 3h ago
Agree... this is an important blog. People need to press pause on MCP in terms of adoption...it was simply not designed with a solid enough technical foundation that would make it suitable to be an industry standard. People are hyped about it, kind of like they were for LangChain and many other projects, but people are going to gradually (after diving into implementations) that it's not actually what they were looking for..It's basically a hack thrown together by a few people and there are tons of questionable decisions, with websockets being just one example of a big miss.
__loam · 2h ago
The Langchain repo is actually hilariously bad if you ever go read the source. I can't believe they raised money with that crap. Right place right time I guess.
I didn’t believe you before clicking the link, but hot damn. That reads like the ideas I scribbled down in school about all the cool projects I could build. There is literally zero substance in there. Amazing.
lolinder · 14m ago
That page reads like an LLM wrote it, with instructions to fluff out a TypeScript file into a doc and make it read like an RFC. There's even a relic of the prompt here:
> This specification defines the authoritative protocol requirements, based on the TypeScript schema in schema.ts.
No way a human wrote that paragraph.
One of the enduring frustrations in dealing with hypey AI stuff is just how thoroughly so many of these people are drinking their own Kool-Aid. Like, someone actually thought it was a good idea to generate the MCP spec with an LLM. Yikes.
_raz · 4h ago
Glad to here, also thought I was alone :)
mattw1810 · 56m ago
MCP should just have been stateless HTTP to begin with. There is no good reason for almost any of the servers I have seen to be stateful at the request/session level —- either the server carries the state globally or it works fine with a session identifier of some sort.
lo0dot0 · 28m ago
I don't claim to have a lot of experience on this but my intuition tells me that a connection that ends after the request needs to be reopened for the next request. What is more efficient, keeping the session open or closing it, depends on the usage pattern, how much memory does the session consume, etc. etc.
mattw1810 · 24m ago
This is no different from a web app though, there’s no obvious need to reinvent the wheel. We know how to do this very very well: the underlying TCP connection remains active, we multiplex requests, and cookies bridge the gap for multi-request context. Every language has great client & server support for that.
Instead we ended up with a protocol that fights with load balancers and can in most cases not just be chucked into say an existing Express/FastAPI app.
That makes everything harder (& cynically, it creates room for providers like Cloudflare to create black box tooling & advertise it as _the_ way to deploy a remote MCP server)
taocoyote · 39m ago
I don't understand the logistics of MCP interactions. Can anyone explain why they aren't stateless. Why does a connection need to be held open?
mattw1810 · 35m ago
I think some of the advanced features around sampling from the calling LLM could theoretically benefit from a bidirectional stream.
In practice, nobody uses those parts of the protocol (it was overdesigned and hardly any clients support it). The key thing MCP brings right now is a standardized way to discover & invoke tools. This would’ve worked equally well as a plain HTTP-based protocol (certainly for a v1) and it’d have made it 10x easier to implement.
dend · 2h ago
Just to add one piece of clarification - the comment around authorization is a bit out-of-date. We've worked closely with Anthropic and the broader security community to update that part of MCP and implement a proper separation between resource server (RS) and authorization server (AS) when it comes to roles. You can see this spec in draft[1] (it will be there until a new protocol version is ratified).
Idk, I'm kind of agnostic and ended up throwing it in there.
Regurgitating the OAuth draft don't seem that usefull imho, and why am I forced into it if I'm using http. Seems like there are plenty of usecases where un-attended thing would like to interact over http, where we usually use other things aside from OAuth.
It all probably could have been replaced by
- The Client shall implement OAuth2
- The Server may implement OAuth2
dend · 49m ago
For local servers this doesn't matter as much. For remote servers - you won't really have any serious MCP servers without auth, and you want to have some level setting done between client and servers. OAuth 2.1 is a good middle ground.
That's also where, with the new spec, you don't actually need to implement anything from scratch. Server issues a 401 with WWW-Authenticate, pointing to metadata for authorization server locations. Client takes that and does discovery, followed by OAuth flow (clients can use many libraries for that). You don't need to implement your own OAuth server.
keithwhor · 2h ago
On MCP's Streamable HTTP launch I posted a issue asking if we should just simplify everything for remote MCP servers to just be HTTP requests.
MCP as a spec is really promising; a universal way to connect LLMs to tools. But in practice you hit a lot of edge cases really quickly. To name a few; auth, streaming of tool responses, custom instructions per tool, verifying tool authenticity (is the server I'm using trustworthy?). It's still not entirely clear (*for remote servers*) to me what you can do with MCP that you can't do with just a REST API, the latter being a much more straightforward integration path.
If other vendors do adopt MCP (OpenAI and Gemini have promised to) the problem they're going to run into very quickly is that they want to do things (provide UI elements, interaction layers) that go beyond the MCP spec. And a huge amount of MCP server integrations will just be lackluster at best; perhaps I'm wrong -- but if I'm { OpenAI, Anthropic, Google } I don't want a consumer installing Bob's Homegrown Stripe Integration from a link they found on 10 Best MCP Integrations, sharing their secret key, and getting (A) a broken experience that doesn't match the brand or worse yet, (B) credentials stolen.
keithwhor · 1h ago
Quick follow up:
I anticipate alignment issues as well. Anthropic is building MCP to make the Anthropic experience great. But Anthropic's traffic is fractional compared to ChatGPT - 20M monthly vs 400M weekly. Gemini claims 350M monthly. The incentive structure is all out of whack; how long are OpenAI and Google going to let an Anthropic team (or even a committee?) drive an integration spec?
Consumers have barely interacted with these things yet. They did once, with ChatGPT Plugins, and it failed. It doesn't entirely make sense to me that OpenAI is okay to do this again but let another company lead the charge and define the limitations of the end user experience (because that what the spec ultimately does, dictates how prompts and function responses are transported), when the issue wasn't the engineering effort (ChatGPT's integration model was objectively more elegant) but a consumer experience issue.
The optimistic take on this is the community is strong and motivated enough to solve these problems as an independent group, and the traction is certainly there. I am interested to see how it all plays out!
Scotrix · 1h ago
OpenAI takes the backseat and wait until something stable/usable comes out of it which gains traction and takes it over then. Old classic playbook to let others make the mistakes and profit from it…
From reading your issue, I'm not holding my breath.
It all kind of seems too important to fuck up
keithwhor · 1h ago
In the grand scheme of things I think we are still very early. MCP might be the thing which is why I'd rather try and contribute if I can; it does have a grassroots movement I haven't seen in a while. But the wonderful thing about the market is that incentives, e.g. good customer experiences that people pay for, will probably win. This means that MCP, if it remains the focal point for this sort of work, will become a lot better regardless of whether or not early pokes and prods by folks like us are successful or not. :)
justanotheratom · 5h ago
It is indeed quite baffline why MCP is taking off, but facts are facts. I would love to be enlightened how MCP is better than an OpenAPI Spec of an existing Server.
simonw · 4h ago
My theory is that a lot of the buzz around MCP is actually buzz around the fact that LLM tool usage works pretty well now.
OpenAI plugins flopped back in 2023 because the LLMs at the time weren't reliable enough for tool usage to be anything more than interesting-but-flawed.
MCP's timing was much better.
fhd2 · 3h ago
I'm still having relatively disastrous results compared to just sending pre curated context (i.e. calling tools deterministically upfront) to the model.
Doesn't cover all the use cases, but for information retrieval stuff, the difference is pretty light and day. Not to mention the deterministic context management approach is quite a bit cheaper in terms of tokens.
visarga · 1h ago
I find letting the agent iterate search leads to better results. It can direct the search dynamically.
runekaagaard · 4h ago
I thinks a lot is timing and also that it's a pretty low bar to write your first mcp server:
from mcp.server.fastmcp import FastMCP
mcp = FastMCP("Basic Math Server")
@mcp.tool()
def multiply(a: int, b: int) -> int:
return a * b
mcp.run()
If you have a large MCP server with many tools the amount of text sent to the LLM can be significant too. I've found that Claude works great with an OpenAPI spec if you provide it with a way to look up details for individual paths and a custom message that explains the basics. For instance https://github.com/runekaagaard/mcp-redmine
_raz · 4h ago
That's kind of my point, that the protocols complexity is hidden in py sdk making it feel easy... But taking on large tech dept
practal · 2h ago
The difficult part is figuring out what kind of abstractions we need MCP servers / clients to support. The transport layer is really not important, so until that is settled, just use the Python / TypeScript SDK.
mmcnl · 58m ago
But the spec is on the transport level. So for the specification, the transport layer is very important.
How exactly those messages get transported is not really relevant for implementing an mcp server, and easy to switch, as long as there is some standard.
pixl97 · 2h ago
I mean isn't this the point of a lot of, if not most successful software? Abstracting away the complexity making it feel easy, where most users of the software have no clue what kind of technical debt they are adopting?
Just think of something like microsoft word/excel for most of its existence. Seems easy to the end user, but attempting to move away from it was complex, the format had binary objects that were hard to unwind, and interactions that were huge security risks.
Scotrix · 1h ago
yeah, but it doesn’t need to be that way. It can be simple and makes it easier adoptable, why over engineering and reinventing the wheel of at least 2 decades experience and better practices.
pixl97 · 26m ago
Simple software is the most difficult software to make.
Historically stated as
>I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one.
hirsin · 5h ago
This is one of the few places I think it's obvious why MCP provides value - an OpenAPI document is static and does no lifting for the LLM, forcing the LLM to handle all of the call construction and correctness on its own. MCP servers reduce LLM load by providing abstractions over concepts, with basically the same benefits we get by not having to write assembly by hand.
In a literal sense it's easier, safer, faster, etc for an LLM to remember "use server Foo to do X" than "I read a document that talks about calling api z with token q to get data b, and I can combine three or four api calls using this http library to...."
acchow · 4h ago
I believe gp is saying the MCP’s “tool/list” endpoint should return dynamic, but OpenAPI-format, content.
Not that the list of tools and their behavior should be static (which would be much less capable)
tedivm · 5h ago
I'm not saying MCP is perfect, but it's better than OpenAPI for LLMs for a few reasons.
* MCP tools can be described simply and without a lot of text. OpenAPI specs are often huge. This is important because the more context you provide an LLM the more expensive it is to run, and the larger model you need to use to be effective. If you provide a lot of tools then using OpenAPI specs could take up way too much for context, while the same tools for MCP will use much less.
* LLMs aren't actually making the calls, it's the engine driving it. What happens when an LLM wants to make a call is it responds directly with a block of text that the engine catches and uses to run the command. This allows LLMs to work like they're used to: figuring out text to output. This has a lot of benefits: less tokens to output than a big JSON blob is going to be cheaper.
* OpenAPI specs are static, but MCP allows for more dynamic tool usage. This can mean that different clients can get different specs, or that tools can be added after the client has connected (possibly in response to something the client sent). OpenAPI specs aren't nearly that flexible.
This isn't to say there aren't problems. I think the transport layer can use some work, as OP sent, but if you play around in their repo you can see websocket examples so I wouldn't be surprised if that was coming. Also the idea that "interns" are the ones making the libraries is an absolute joke, as the FastMCP implementation (which was turned into the official spec) is pretty solid. The mixture of hyperbole with some reasonable points really ruins this article.
9dev · 13m ago
> OpenAPI specs are static, but MCP allows for more dynamic tool usage.
This is repeated everywhere, but I don’t get it. OpenAPI specs are served from an HTTP endpoint, there’s nothing stopping you from serving a dynamically rendered spec depending on the client or the rest of the world?
smartvlad · 3h ago
If you look at the actual raw output of tools/list call you may find it surprisingly similar to the OpenAPI spec for the same interface. In fact they are trivially convertible to each other.
Personally I find OpenAPI spec being more practical since it includes not just endpoints with params, but also outputs and authentication.
Know all that from my own experience plugging dozens of APIs to both MCP/Claude and ChatGPT.
armdave · 5h ago
What does it mean that "different clients can get different specs"? Different in what dimension? I could imagine this makes creating repeatable and reliable workflows problematic.
tedivm · 4h ago
Using MCP you can send "notifications" to the server, and the server can send back notifications including the availability of new tools.
So this isn't the same as saying "this user agent gets X, this gets Y". It's more like "this client requested access to X set of tools, so we sent back a notification with the list of those additional tools".
This is why I do think websockets make more sense in a lot of ways here, as there's a lot more two way communication here than you'd expect in a typically API. This communication also is very session based, which is another thing that doesn't make sense for most OpenAPI specs which assume a more REST-like stateless setup.
I somewhat agree with author’s comments, but also want to note that the protocol is in the extremely early stages of development, and it will likely evolve a lot over the next year.
I think that no one (including me) anticipated just how much attention this will get straight out the door. When I started working on the registry, there were fewer than a few dozen servers. Then suddenly a few weeks later there was a thousand, and numbers just kept growing.
However, lots and lots of those servers do not work. Majority of my time has gone into trying to identify servers that work (using various automated tests). All of this is in large part because MCP got picked up by the mainstream AI audience before the protocol reached any maturity.
Things are starting to look better now though. We have a few frameworks that abstract the hard parts of the protocol. We have a few registries that do a decent job surfacing servers that work vs those that do not. We have a dozen or so clients that support MCPs, etc. All of this in less than half a year is unheard of.
So yes, while it is easy to find flaws in MCP, we have to acknowledge that all of it happened in a super short amount of time – I cannot even think of comparisons to make. If the velocity remains the same, MCP future is very bright.
For those getting started, I maintain a few resources that could be valuable:
> I somewhat agree with author’s comments, but also want to note that the protocol is in the extremely early stages of development, and it will likely evolve a lot over the next year.
And that's why it's so important to spec with humility. When you make mistakes early in protocol design, you live with them FOREVER. Do you really want to live with a SSE Rube Goldberg machine forever? Who the hell does? Do you think you can YOLO a breaking change to the protocol? That might work in NPM but enterprise customers will scream like banshees if you do, so in practice, you're stuck with your mistakes.
punkpeye · 2h ago
Just focusing on worst-case scenarios tends to spread more FUD than move things forward. If you have specific proposals for how the protocol could be designed differently, I’m sure the community would love to hear them – https://github.com/orgs/modelcontextprotocol/discussions
ethical_source · 2h ago
The worst case scenario being, what, someone implementing the spec instead of using the SDK and doing it in a way you didn't anticipate? Security and interoperability will not yield to concerns about generating FUD. These concerns are important whether you like them or not. You might as well be whispering that ill news is a ill guest.
At the least, MCP needs to clarify things like "SHOULD rate limit" in more precise terms. Imagine someone who is NOT YOU, someone who doesn't go to your offsites, someone who doesn't give a fuck about your CoC, implementing your spec TO THE LETTER in a way you didn't anticipate. You going to sit there and complain that you obviously didn't intend to do the things that weird but compliant server is doing? You don't have a recourse.
The recent MCP annotations work is especially garbage. What the fuck is "read only"? What's "destructive"? With respect to what? And hoo boy, "open world". What the fuck? You expect people to read your mind?
What would be the point of creating GH issues to discuss these problems? The kind of mind that writes things like this isn't the kind of mind that will understand why they need fixing.
rco8786 · 2h ago
Agree with basically all of this.
The actual protocol of MCP is…whatever. I’m sure it will continue to evolve and mature. It was never going to be perfect out of the gate, because what is?
But the standardization of agentic tooling APIs is mind bogglingly powerful, regardless of what the standard itself actually looks like.
I can write and deploy code and then the AI just..immediately knows how to use it. Something you have to experience yourself to really get it.
punkpeye · 2h ago
Yup. It's easy to focus on what’s missing or broken in early-stage tech, but I’m more excited about where this kind of standardization could take us. Sometimes you need to look beyond imperfections and see the possibilities ahead.
_raz · 2h ago
Kind of my fear exactly. We are moving so fast and that mcp would create an accept a transport protocol that might take years or decades to get rid off for something better.
Kind of reminds me of the browser wars during 90s where everyone tried to run the fastest an created splits in standards and browsers what we didn't really det rid of for a good 20 year or more. IE11 was around for far to long
punkpeye · 2h ago
I think that transport is a non-issue.
Whatever the transport evolves to, it is easy to create proxies that convert from one transport to another, e.g. https://github.com/punkpeye/mcp-proxy
As an example, every server that you see on Glama MCP registry today is hosted using stdio. However, the proxy makes them available over SSE, and could theoretically make them available over WS, 'streamable HTTP', etc
Glama is just one example of doing this, but I think that other registries/tools will emerge that will effectively make the transport the server chooses to implement irrelevant.
practal · 2h ago
There isn't much detailed technical spec on MCP on the spec site, but they have a link to a schema [1]. You can add that schema to a Claude project, and then examine it. That's very helpful, although you will quickly run into unsupported things, for example embedded resources in tool call responses in Claude Desktop.
I think MCP will be a huge deal for Practal. Implementing Practal as an MCP server, I basically don't need a frontend.
> Simply put, it is a JSON-RPC protocol with predefined methods/endpoints designed to be used in conjunction with an LLM.
Is a spot on / simplest explanation of MCP, wonder why nobody use that or insist that it's usb-c for AI on their tutorials! Seeing this early can makes me understand MCP in 5 minutes
doug_durham · 9m ago
Meanwhile I'm happily writing MCP servers that meet my personal needs and installing complex packages over pip. The author seems to have a very narrow concept of what makes acceptable software.
vlovich123 · 7m ago
I too love to close out bugs with “works for me on my machine”
DGAP · 30m ago
I assume the docs, code, and design were done mostly by AI.
shivawu · 1h ago
Obviously the article is making valid points. But a recent epiphany I had is, things by default are just mediocre but works. Of course the first shot at this problem is not going to be very good, very much like the first version of JavaScript is a shitshow and we’ll take years to pay down the technical debts. In order to force a beautiful creation, significant effort and will power needs to be put in place. So Id say I’m not surprised at all and this is just how the world works, in most cases.
keithwhor · 1h ago
I think this is a cop out. OpenAI literally published a better integration spec two years ago, stored on `/.well-known/ai-plugin.json`. It just gave a summary of an OpenAPI spec, which ChatGPT could consume and then run your functions.
It was simple and elegant, the timing was just off. So the first shot at this problem actually looked quite good, and we're currently in a regression.
traviscline · 1h ago
Thanks for this, I’ve been feeling similarly.
I’m working on some Go programs/tools with the explicit goal of describing existing servers in a language neutral manner to try to get some sanity into the mix.
I was reenergized to pick this back up because Google is working on a version so I want to get these tools ready.
Open to ideas and input, have been noodling on it for a bit now, lots not in form to share but figured I’d share early:
In the current state you can insert “mcpspy” in front of a server and it intercepts and streams out a plain text format that’s nice for humans and machines. There’s also a replay tool that emulates previous traffic, including in mock client and server modes, and a diffing program that is mcp protocol aware.
Oh, and most importantly, a vim syntax plugin for the .mcp file format.
This is what the tests look like, for both the tools and to validate the servers.
_raz · 1h ago
I had to take a break from extending, our go LLM wrapper, https://github.com/modfin/bellman with mcp to write the blog entry. So some sort of server-like-thing will be added soon
hrpnk · 4h ago
This critical look focuses just on the protocol. The fun starts with the actual MCP server implementations... Seems that providing an MCP server is the to be or not to be for all sorts of vendors. All REST APIs get wrapped into an MCP to make products LLM-compatible and tick checkmarks on newly extended checklists.
Many pass REST responses directly to LLMs that quickly leads to token burn. Wish providers took a closer look on the actual engineering practices for the servers.
Has someone seen a good implementation of an MCP server with a comprehensive test suite?
Scotrix · 2h ago
Couldn’t agree more, played the whole day today trying to get a HTTP MCP server with Claude running.
Absolutely terrible, no clear spec, absolute useless errors and/or just broken behaviour without telling what’s wrong. Reference implementations and frameworks are not working either, so only reverse engineering + trial & error until it runs, yaaay.
Feels like the early 2000 over and over again, trying to make something work.
_heimdall · 3h ago
I haven't dug too deeply into MCP yet so I may very well be wrong here, but it feels like get another attempt to paper over the fact that we abandoned REST APIs nearly 20 years ago.
XML is ugly and building APIs that describe both the data and available actions is tough.
Instead we picked JSON RPCs that we still call REST, and we inevitably run into situations like Alexa or LLMs where we want a machine to understand what actions are supported in an API and what the data schema is.
theturtle32 · 1h ago
Regarding the WebSocket critiques specifically, as the author of https://www.npmjs.com/package/websocket, and having participated in the IETF working group that defined the WebSocket protocol, I completely agree with this blog post's author.
The WebSocket protocol is the most ideal choice for a bi-directional streaming communication channel, and the arguments listed in https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol... for "Why Not WebSockets" are honestly bewildering. They are at best thin, irrelevant and misleading. It seems as though they were written by people who don't really understand the WebSocket protocol, and have never actually used it.
Here are the stated arguments against using the WebSocket protocol, and my responses.
---
Argument 1: Wanting to use MCP in an "RPC-like" way (e.g., a stateless MCP server that just exposes basic tools) would incur a lot of unnecessary operational and network overhead if a WebSocket is required for each call.
Response 1: There are multiple better ways to address this.
Option A.) Define a plain HTTP, non-streaming request/response transport for these basic use cases. That would be both DRAMATICALLY simpler than the "Streaming HTTP" HTTP+SSE transport they did actually define, while not clouding the waters around streaming responses and bi-directional communications.
Option B.) Just leave the WebSocket connection open for the duration of the session instead of tearing it down and re-connecting it for every request. Conceptualizing a WebSocket connection as an ephemeral resource that needs to be torn down and reconstructed for every request is wrong.
---
Argument 2: From a browser, there is no way to attach headers (like Authorization), and unlike SSE, third-party libraries cannot reimplement WebSocket from scratch in the browser.
Response 2: The assertion is true. You cannot attach arbitrary headers to the initial HTTP GET request that initiates a WebSocket connection, not because of the WebSocket protocol's design, but because the design of the browser API doesn't expose the capability. However, such a limitation is totally irrelevant, as there are plenty of other ways that you could decide to convey that information from client to server:
- You can pass arbitrary values via standard HTTP GET query parameters to be interpreted during the WebSocket handshake. Since we're initiating a WebSocket connection and not actually performing a GET operation on an HTTP resource, this does not create issues with caching infrastructure, and does not violate standard HTTP GET semantics. The HTTP GET that initiates a WebSocket connection is HTTP GET in name only, as the response in a successful WebSocket handshake is to switch protocols and no longer speak HTTP for the remainder of the connection's lifetime.
- Cookies are automatically sent just as with any other HTTP request. This is the standard web primitive for correllating session state across connections. I'll grant, however, that it may be a less relevant mechanism if we're talking about cross-origin connections.
- Your subprotocol definition (what messages are sent and received over the WebSocket connection) could simply require that the client sends any such headers, e.g. Authorization, as part of the first message it sends to the server once the underlying WebSocket connection is established. If this is sent pipelined along with the first normal message over the connection, it wouldn't even introduce an additional round-trip and therefore would have no impact on connection setup time or latency.
These are not strange, onerous workarounds.
---
Argument 3: Only GET requests can be transparently upgraded to WebSocket (other HTTP methods are not supported for upgrading), meaning that some kind of two-step upgrade process would be required on a POST endpoint, introducing complexity and latency.
Response 3: Unless I'm missing something, this argument seems totally bewildering, nonsensical, and irrelevant. It suggests a lack of familiarity with what the WebSocket protocol is for. The semantics of a WebSocket connection are orthoganal to the semantics of HTTP GET or HTTP POST. There is no logical concept of upgrading a POST request to a WebSocket connection, nor is there a need for such a concept. MCP is a new protocol that can function however it needs to. There is no benefit to trying to constrain your conceptualization of its theoretical use of WebSockets to fit within the semantics of any other HTTP verbs. In fact, the only relationship between WebSockets and HTTP is that WebSockets utilizes standard HTTP only to bootstrap a connection, after which point it stops speaking HTTP over the wire and starts speaking a totally distinct binary protocol instead. It should be conceptualized as more analogous to a TCP connection than an HTTP connection. If you are thinking of WebSockets in terms of REST semantics, you have not properly understood how WebSockets differs, nor how to utilize it architecturally.
Since the logical semantics of communication over a WebSocket connection in an MCP server are functionally identical to how the MCP protocol would function over STDIN/STDOUT, the assertion that you would need some kind of two-step upgrade process on a POST endpoint is just false, because there would not exist any POST endpoint for you to have interacted with in the first place, and if one did exist, it would serve some other purpose unrelated to the actual WebSocket connection.
---
In my view, the right way to conceptualize WebSocket in MCP is as a drop-in, mostly transparent alternative to STDIO. Once the WebSocket connection is established, the MCP client/server should be able to speak literally EXACTLY the same protocol with each other as they do over STDIO.
_raz · 57m ago
Thanks, very nice! A very explanatory write-up
grogenaut · 3h ago
I find the discussing of the quality of the MCP protocol funny. This space is constantly evolving very quickly. I consider MCP completely throw away, and I'm willing to deal with it as unimportant in that rapidly evolving space. I'm sure there will be a different implementation and approach in 6-12 months, or not. From the speed I'm able to turn on MCP integrations I don't think it'll take that long to swap to another protocol. We're in the sone age here. MCP may be crappy but it's a flint and steel versus a bowstring. Eventually we'll get to central or zoned heating.
I'm using MCP locally on my laptop, the security requirements are different there than on a server. Logging can be done at the actual integration with external api level if you have standard clients and logging, which I do and push for.
To me what is important right now is to glue my apis, data sources, and tools, to the AI tools my people are using. MCP seems to do that easily. Honestly I don't care about the protocol, at the end of the day, protocols are just ways for things to talk to each other, if they're interesting in and of themselves to you you're focusing on other things than I am. My goal is delivering power with the integration.
MCP may be messy, but the AI tools I'm using them with seem just fine and dealing with that mess to help me build more power into the AI tools. That, at the end of the day is what I care about, can I get the info and power into the tools so that my employees can do stuff they couldn't do before. MCP seems to do that just fine. If we move to some other protocol in 6 months, I'm assuming I can do that with AI tools on a pretty quick basis, as fast as I'm building it right now.
mountainriver · 2h ago
MCP is in a race to be valuable at all. Smarter agents will have no use for it
punnerud · 2h ago
I don’t agree with MCP being a bad standard, remember it’s supposed to be as simple and easy as possible to not take up a lot of tokens and for the LLM to use.
More complex stuff you can build on the “outside”. So keeping it local seems ok, because it’s just the LLM facing part.
Tldr; it's json array passed to llms. Swagger would have sufficed. How and why youcome up with the array shouldn't matter. We shouldn't need 10000 redundant servers.
TZubiri · 4h ago
"Why do I need to implement OAuth2 if I'm using HTTP as transport, while an API key is enough for stdio?"
Because one is made for local and the other for connecting through the internet.
Seattle3503 · 2h ago
You need something like OAuth because you don't want your end users generating API keys for every service they want to use via LLM.
deadbabe · 48m ago
Maybe we should though
neuroelectron · 5h ago
MCP is the moat to keep small players outside of the AI market. Not only does implementing it require a team, it is a tarpit of sabotage, where logging and state are almost impossible to track.
triyambakam · 4h ago
Have you tried it though? There are sdks where you can set up logging and MCP server or client in a few lines. Pydantic AI and Logfire as one example
neuroelectron · 3h ago
Yes, there are SDKs that abstract away some of the setup.
But what exactly is being logged? Where is the data going? How tamper-proof is that logging? How is the network communication implemented? How do you check those logs? What exactly is being sent through the line? It’s hard to audit, especially without deep visibility into the underlying layers which include binary blobs and their tokens for trust. How do you model internal state? How do you write regression tests?
lelanthran · 1h ago
SDKs aren't a spec.
A spec is what I use to write an SDK.
esafak · 2h ago
MCP is simple, as protocols go.
vmaurin · 2h ago
It will probably never work. Companies have spend probably the last decade(s?) closing everything on Internet:
* no more RSS feed
* paywall
* the need to have an "app" to access a service
* killing open protocols
And all of the sudden, everyone will expose their data through simple API calls ?
Seattle3503 · 2h ago
Indeed I think a lot of companies will hate the idea of losing their analytics and app mediated control over their users.
I see it working in a B2B context where customers demand that their knowledge management systems (ticketing, docs, etc...) have an MCP interface.
auggierose · 1h ago
I think it is a huge opportunity to dethrone established players that don't want to open up that way. Users will want it, and whoever gives it to them, wins.
dboreham · 1h ago
People love to invent new stuff, even when said stuff already exists. Other people love to embrace said unnecessary new stuff without question.
ethical_source · 3h ago
You must understand that when you deal with AI people, you deal with children. Imagine the author of the spec you're trying to implement is a new grad in San Francisco (Mission, not Mission Street, thanks).
He feels infallible because he's smart enough to get into a hot AI startup and hasn't ever failed. He's read TCP 973 and 822 and 2126 and admitted the vibe or rigor but can't tell you why we have SYN and Message-ID or what the world might have been had alternatives one.
He has strong opinions about package managers for the world's most important programming languages. (Both of them.) But he doesn't understand that implementation is incidental. He's the sort of person to stick "built in MyFavoriteFramework" above the food on his B2B SaaS burrito site. He doesn't appreciate that he's not the customer and customers don't give a fuck. Maybe he doesn't care, because he's never had to turn a real profit in his life.
This is the sort of person building perhaps the most important human infrastructure since the power grid and the Internet itself. You can't argue with them in the way the author of the MCP evaluation article does. They don't comprehend. They CANNOT comprehend. Their brains do not have a theory of mind sufficient for writing a spec robust to implementation by other minds.
That's why they ship SDKs. It's the only thing they can. Their specs might as well be "Servers SHOULD do the right thing. They MUST have good vibes." Pathetic.
God help us.
auggierose · 1h ago
I think you are wrong, but I upvoted anyway because it is so funny :-)
phillipcarter · 3h ago
…what? Literally nothing you wrote is accurate.
ethical_source · 2h ago
You'll come around to my perspective in time. Don't take it personally. This generation isn't any worse than prior ones. We go through this shit every time the tech industry turns over.
phillipcarter · 1h ago
The people who built MCP are seasoned software engineers, as are most folks who work for these labs. What are you even on about?
ethical_source · 1h ago
LOL
phillipcarter · 8m ago
Okay, well, clearly you have some funny beliefs, and I won’t try to convince you otherwise. Just think first before posting weird screeds with no basis in reality next time.
ethical_source · 4m ago
> weird
Adj, something the speaker wants the audience to dislike without the speaker being on the hook for explaining why.
> screed
Noun, document the speaker doesn't like but can't rebut.
It's funny how people in the blue tribe milieu use the same effete vocabulary. I'll continue writing at the object level instead of affecting seven zillion layers of affected fake kindness, thanks.
quantadev · 2h ago
MCP was invented by some very young LLM experts probably with limited experience in "protocol" design. They'll probably see this article you wrote criticizing it and realize they made a mistake. I bet there's a way to wrap that stdio stuff with WebSockets, like was recommended in the blog/article.
Frankly I'm not sure why an ordinary REST service (just HTTP posts) wasn't considered ok, but I haven't used MCP yet myself.
What MCP got right was very powerful of course which I'd summarize as giving all AI-related software the ability to call functions that reside on other servers during inference (i.e. tool calls), or get documents and prompt templates in a more organized way where said docs are specifically intended for consumption by AIs residing anywhere in the world (i.e. on other servers). I see MCP as sort of a 'function call' version of the internet where AIs are doing the calling. So MCP is truly like "The Internet for AIs". So it's huge.
But just like JavaScript sucks bad, yet we run the entire web on it, it won't be that bad if the MCP protocol is jank, as long as it works. Sure would better to have a clean protocol tho, so I agree with the article.
stevev · 2h ago
One major obstacle to grasping high-level abstractions and their implementations lies in poorly designed systems or language limitations. At this stage, any human-produced effort—be it documentation, explanations, or naming—should be reviewed by AI. Language models often excel at crafting clearer analogies and selecting more meaningful or intuitive naming conventions than we do.
In short, let LLMs handle the documentation.
— written by ai
stalfosknight · 4h ago
I thought this was about the Master Control Program at first.
The post misses the mark on why a stateless protocol like MCP actually makes sense today. Most modern devs aren’t spinning up custom servers or fiddling with sticky sessions—they’re using serverless platforms like AWS Lambda or Cloudflare Workers because they’re cheaper, easier to scale, and less of a headache to manage. MCP’s statelessness fits right into that model and makes life simpler, not harder.
Sure, if you’re running your own infrastructure, you’ve got other problems to worry about—and MCP won’t be the thing holding you back. Complaining that it doesn’t cater to old-school setups kind of misses the point. It’s built for the way things work now, not the way they used to.
progbits · 2h ago
It's not really stateless. How do you want to support SSE or "Streamable HTTP" on your lambda? Each request will hit a new random worker, but your response is supposed to go on some other long-running SSE stream.
The protocol is absolute mess both for clients and servers. The whole thing could have been avoided if they picked any sane bidirectional transport, even websocket.
halter73 · 3m ago
> Each request will hit a new random worker, but your response is supposed to go on some other long-running SSE stream.
It seems your knowledge is a little out of date. The big difference between the older SSE transport and the new "Streamable HTTP" transport is that the JSON-RPC response is supposed to be in the HTTP response body for the POST request containing the JSON-RPC request, not "some other long-running SSE stream". The response to the POST can be a text/event-stream if you want to send things like progress notifications before the final JSON-RPC response, or it can be a plain application/json response with a sing JSON-RPC response message.
If you search the web for "MCP Streamable HTTP Lambda", you'll find plenty of working examples. I'm a little sympathetic to the argument that MCP is currently underspecified in some ways. For example, the spec doesn't currently mandate that the server MUST include the JSON-RPC response directly in the HTTP response body to the initiating POST request. Instead, it's something the spec says the server SHOULD do.
Currently, for my client-side Streamable implementation in the MCP C# SDK, we consider it an error if the response body ends without a JSON-RPC response we're expecting, and we haven't gotten complaints yet, but it's still very early. For now, it seems better to raise what's likely to be an error rather than wait for a timeout. However, we might change the behavior if and when we add resumability/redilivery support.
I think a lot of people in the comments are complaining about the Streamable HTTP transport without reading it [1]. I'm not saying it's perfect. It's still undergoing active development. Just on the Streamable HTTP front, we've removed batching support [2], because it added a fair amount of additional complexity without much additional value, and I'm sure we'll make plenty more changes. As someone who's implemented a production HTTP/1, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 server that implements [3], and also helped implement automatic OpenAPI Document generation, no protocol is perfect. The HTTP spec mispells "referrer" and it has a race condition when a client tries to send a request over and idle "keep-alive" connection at the same time the server tries to close it. The HTTP/2 spec lets the client just open and RST streams without the server having any way to apply backpressure on new requests. I don't have big complaints about HTTP/3 yet (and I'm sure part of that is a lot of the complexity in HTTP/2 was properly handled by the transport layer which for Kestrel means msquic), but give it more time and usage and I'm sure I'll have some. That's okay though, real artists ship.
> However, I'm astonished by the apparent lack of mature engineering practices.
Exactly.
MCP is one of the worst 'standards' that I have seen come out from anywhere since JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) and the author rightfully points out the lack of engineering practices of a 'standard' that is to be widely used like any properly designed standard with industry-wide input.
> Increased Attack Surface: The multiple entry points for session creation and SSE connections expand the attack surface. Each entry point represents a potential vulnerability that an attacker could exploit.
JWTs have this same issue with multiple algorithms to use including the horrific 'none' algorithm. Now we have a similar issue with MCP with multiple entry points to chose from which is more ways to attack the protocol.
This one is the most damning.
> Python and JavaScript are probably one of the worst choices of languages for something you want to work on anyone else's computer. The authors seem to realize this since all examples are available as Docker containers.
Another precise point and I have to say that our industry is once again embracing the worst technologies to design immature standards like this.
The MCP spec appears to be designed without consideration for security or with any input from external companies like a normal RFC proposal should and is quite frankly repeating the same issues like JWTs.
neuroelectron · 4h ago
I think it's clear that they want a proprietary solution that takes a year or more for others to copy. That gives them another year head start on the competition.
danielbln · 3h ago
Who is "they"?
neuroelectron · 3h ago
The AI houses buying up the entire market of GPUs. Have you heard about them?
pixl97 · 2h ago
This is paranoid drivel....
Tell me which is more likely.
1. There is a cabal of companies painstakingly working together to make the most convoluted software possible from scratch so they can dominate the market.
or
2. A few people threw together a bit of code to attempt to get something working without any deep engineering or systematic view of what they were trying to accomplish, getting something to work well enough that it took off quickly in a time where everyone wants to have tool use on LLMs.
I've been on the internet a long time and number 2 is a common software paradigm on things that are 'somewhat' open and fast moving. Number 1 does happen but it either is started and kept close by a single company, or you have a Microsoft "embrace, extend, extinguish" which isn't going on here.
neuroelectron · 57m ago
3. The internal & enterprise models are better and not based on Python.
moralestapia · 5h ago
Context is stdin and stdio.
"It kind of breaks the Unix/Linux piping paradigm using these streams for bidirectional communication."
Uhm ... no? They were meant for that.
But the rest of the critique is well founded. "Streamable HTTP" is quite an amateurish move.
kelnos · 3h ago
> They were meant for that.
No they weren't. If we look at it from the perspective of pipelines (and not interactive programs that take input directly from the user and display output on the screen), stdin is for receiving data from the program in the pipeline before you, and stdout is for sending data to the thing in the pipeline after you. That's not bidirectional, that's a unidirectional flow.
moralestapia · 2h ago
You are wrong.
STDIN means Standard INPUT.
STDOUT means Standard OUTPUT.
There is no design/hardware/software limitation to reading and writing to them at the same time. That's your bidirectional channel with that one process.
>stdin is for receiving data from the program in the pipeline before you, and stdout is for sending data to the thing in the pipeline after you
Did you just wanted to ratify my argument, or is there something else you want to add?
OJFord · 5h ago
I think 'bidirectional' is unclear there, they really mean a back and forth dialogue, interactive bidirectional communication. Which, yeah, a socket (as they said) seems a better choice.
moralestapia · 3h ago
I think stdin and stdio are meant to always be piped forward, and a program further down the pipe cannot modify a tool back in the pipeline, maybe that's what he's trying to convey with "bidirectional"?
elesbao · 3h ago
my dude really got angry but forgot almost all cloud message queue offerings over HTTP works like this (minus SSE). Eventually MCP will take the same route as WS which started clunky with the http upgrade thing being standard but not often used and evolved. Then it will migrate to any other way of doing remote interface, as GRPC, REST and so on.
zbentley · 2h ago
I mean…the cloud message queues that use HTTP are not good examples of quality software. They all end up being mediocre to poor on every axis: they’re not generalizable enough to be high quality low level components in complex data routing (e.g. SQS’s design basically precludes rapid redelivery on client failure, and is resistant to heterogenous workloads by requiring an up-front redelivery/deadletter timeout); simultaneously, HTTP’s statelessness at the client makes extremely basic use cases flaky since e.g. consumer acknowledgment/“pop” failures are hard to differentiate as server-side issues, incorrect client behavior, or conceptual partitions in the consume transaction network link…”conceptual” because that connection doesn’t actually exist, leading to all these problems. Transactionality between stream operations, too, is either a hell-no or a hella-slow (requiring all the hoop-jumping mentioned in TFA for clients’ operations to find the server session that “owns” the transaction’s pseudo connection) if built on top of HTTP.
In other words, you can’t emulate a stateful connection on top of stateless RPC—well, you can, but nobody does because it’d be slow and require complicated clients. Instead, they staple a few headers on top of RPC and assert that it’s just as good as a socket. Dear reader: it is not.
This isn’t an endorsement of AMQP 0.9 and the like or anything. The true messaging/streaming protocols have plenty of their own issues. But at least they don’t build on a completely self-sabotaged foundation.
Like, I get it. HTTP is popular and a lot of client ecosystems balk at more complex protocols. But in the case of stateful duplex communication (of which queueing is a subset), you don’t save on complexity by building on HTTP. You just move the complexity into the reliability domain rather than the implementation domain.
petesergeant · 5h ago
This all sounds valid, but it’s also the least interesting part of the whole thing. As a developer I’m expecting to be able to reach for a framework that’ll just abstract away all the weird design decisions that he mentions.
kelnos · 3h ago
You're not the intended audience for this blog post. The people who care about this are the kinds of people who have to implement the protocol on either end, and deal with all of those complexities.
You won't be able to fully insulate yourself from those complexities, though. Unnecessary complexity causes user-visible bugs and incompatibilities. You want to reach for a framework that will abstract all this stuff away, but because of poorly-designed protocols like MCP, those frameworks will end up being more unreliable than they need to be, in ways that will leak out to you.
_raz · 2h ago
Well put
quantadev · 2h ago
Just like I saw with protocols like ActivityPub and IPFS, what happens is the developers of these protocols do a couple of reference implementations in their favorite languages, which work, but then when they write the actual "spec" of what they think they did in the code, they never get it fully correct, or even if they do it's messy, incomplete, or not kept up to date.
So as long as you're a developer working in one of those two languages you just take their code and run it, and all is fine. However for someone coming along trying to implement the protocol in a brand new language, it gets discovered that the protocol is insufficient and horrible and attempts to build based on the protocol are therefore doomed to fail.
I'm not saying MCP has already reached this level of chaos, but I'm just saying this is the failure pattern that's fairly common.
Aperocky · 3h ago
MCP is a microcosm of LLM.
Everything looks great works snappy and fast, until you look deeper inside or try to get it to do more complex stuff.
The concept they're trying to accomplish (expose possibly remote functions to a caller in an interrogable manner) has plenty of existing examples in DLLs, gRPC, SOAP, IDL, dCOM, etc, but they don't seem to have learned from any of them, let alone be aware that they exist.
Give it more than a couple months though and I think we'll see it mature some more. We just got their auth patterns to use existing rails and concepts, just have to eat the rest of the camel.
Or like the early Python ecosystem, mistakes will become ossified at the bottom layers of the stack, as people rapidly build higher level tools that depend on them.
Except unlike early Python, the AI ecosystem community has no excuse, BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF THE EXACT MISTAKES THEY'RE MAKING.
Python.
Let's see how MCP will go.
https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2025/model-context-prot...
What is it in old dev language?
Since Claude Desktop has MCP support built-in, you can just plug off the shelf MCP endpoints into it. Like you could plug your Gmail account, and your Discord, and your Reddit into Claude Desktop provided that MCP integrations exist for those services. So you can tell Claude "look up my recent activity on reddit and send a summary email to my friend Bob about it" or whatever, and Claude will accomplish that task using the available MCPs. There's like a proliferation of MCP tools and marketplaces being built.
If you know REST / http request:
it's single endpoint-only, partitioned / routed by single "type" or "method" parameter, with some different specification, for AI.
Is it sufficient to put a agents.json file in the root of the /.well-known web folder and let agents just "figure it out" through semantic dialogue?
This forces the default use of HTTP as Agent stdio.
As in, how MCP client can access `git` command without stdio? You can run a wrapper server for that or use stdio instead
MCP clients don't access any commands. MCP clients access tools that MCP servers expose.
Genuinely curious, I don’t know the answer. But intuitively JSON is nice for easy to read payloads for transport but to be able to provide rich context around specific parts of text seems right up XML’s alley?
Two simple but useful examples would be inline markup to define a series of numbers as a date or telephone number or a particular phrase tagged as being a different language from the main document. Inline semantic tags would let LLMs better understand the context of those tokens. JSON can't really do that while it's a native aspect of XML.
This is why nearly everything looks like a one weekend pet project by the standards of software engineering.
My claim is supported by the post article and many points there, for example. Another example is my own experience working with python ecosystem and ai/ml libraries in particular. With rare exceptions (like pandas) it is mostly garbage from DevX perspective (in comparison of course).
But I admit my exposure is very limited. I don’t work in ai area professionally (which is another example of my point btw, lol))
It seems like half of it is Sonnet output and it doesn't describe how the protocol actually works.
For all its warts, the GraphQL spec is very well written https://spec.graphql.org/October2021/
> This specification defines the authoritative protocol requirements, based on the TypeScript schema in schema.ts.
No way a human wrote that paragraph.
One of the enduring frustrations in dealing with hypey AI stuff is just how thoroughly so many of these people are drinking their own Kool-Aid. Like, someone actually thought it was a good idea to generate the MCP spec with an LLM. Yikes.
Instead we ended up with a protocol that fights with load balancers and can in most cases not just be chucked into say an existing Express/FastAPI app.
That makes everything harder (& cynically, it creates room for providers like Cloudflare to create black box tooling & advertise it as _the_ way to deploy a remote MCP server)
In practice, nobody uses those parts of the protocol (it was overdesigned and hardly any clients support it). The key thing MCP brings right now is a standardized way to discover & invoke tools. This would’ve worked equally well as a plain HTTP-based protocol (certainly for a v1) and it’d have made it 10x easier to implement.
[1]: https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/draft/basic/au...
Regurgitating the OAuth draft don't seem that usefull imho, and why am I forced into it if I'm using http. Seems like there are plenty of usecases where un-attended thing would like to interact over http, where we usually use other things aside from OAuth.
It all probably could have been replaced by
- The Client shall implement OAuth2 - The Server may implement OAuth2
That's also where, with the new spec, you don't actually need to implement anything from scratch. Server issues a 401 with WWW-Authenticate, pointing to metadata for authorization server locations. Client takes that and does discovery, followed by OAuth flow (clients can use many libraries for that). You don't need to implement your own OAuth server.
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol...
MCP as a spec is really promising; a universal way to connect LLMs to tools. But in practice you hit a lot of edge cases really quickly. To name a few; auth, streaming of tool responses, custom instructions per tool, verifying tool authenticity (is the server I'm using trustworthy?). It's still not entirely clear (*for remote servers*) to me what you can do with MCP that you can't do with just a REST API, the latter being a much more straightforward integration path.
If other vendors do adopt MCP (OpenAI and Gemini have promised to) the problem they're going to run into very quickly is that they want to do things (provide UI elements, interaction layers) that go beyond the MCP spec. And a huge amount of MCP server integrations will just be lackluster at best; perhaps I'm wrong -- but if I'm { OpenAI, Anthropic, Google } I don't want a consumer installing Bob's Homegrown Stripe Integration from a link they found on 10 Best MCP Integrations, sharing their secret key, and getting (A) a broken experience that doesn't match the brand or worse yet, (B) credentials stolen.
I anticipate alignment issues as well. Anthropic is building MCP to make the Anthropic experience great. But Anthropic's traffic is fractional compared to ChatGPT - 20M monthly vs 400M weekly. Gemini claims 350M monthly. The incentive structure is all out of whack; how long are OpenAI and Google going to let an Anthropic team (or even a committee?) drive an integration spec?
Consumers have barely interacted with these things yet. They did once, with ChatGPT Plugins, and it failed. It doesn't entirely make sense to me that OpenAI is okay to do this again but let another company lead the charge and define the limitations of the end user experience (because that what the spec ultimately does, dictates how prompts and function responses are transported), when the issue wasn't the engineering effort (ChatGPT's integration model was objectively more elegant) but a consumer experience issue.
The optimistic take on this is the community is strong and motivated enough to solve these problems as an independent group, and the traction is certainly there. I am interested to see how it all plays out!
From reading your issue, I'm not holding my breath.
It all kind of seems too important to fuck up
OpenAI plugins flopped back in 2023 because the LLMs at the time weren't reliable enough for tool usage to be anything more than interesting-but-flawed.
MCP's timing was much better.
Doesn't cover all the use cases, but for information retrieval stuff, the difference is pretty light and day. Not to mention the deterministic context management approach is quite a bit cheaper in terms of tokens.
How exactly those messages get transported is not really relevant for implementing an mcp server, and easy to switch, as long as there is some standard.
Just think of something like microsoft word/excel for most of its existence. Seems easy to the end user, but attempting to move away from it was complex, the format had binary objects that were hard to unwind, and interactions that were huge security risks.
Historically stated as
>I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one.
In a literal sense it's easier, safer, faster, etc for an LLM to remember "use server Foo to do X" than "I read a document that talks about calling api z with token q to get data b, and I can combine three or four api calls using this http library to...."
Not that the list of tools and their behavior should be static (which would be much less capable)
* MCP tools can be described simply and without a lot of text. OpenAPI specs are often huge. This is important because the more context you provide an LLM the more expensive it is to run, and the larger model you need to use to be effective. If you provide a lot of tools then using OpenAPI specs could take up way too much for context, while the same tools for MCP will use much less.
* LLMs aren't actually making the calls, it's the engine driving it. What happens when an LLM wants to make a call is it responds directly with a block of text that the engine catches and uses to run the command. This allows LLMs to work like they're used to: figuring out text to output. This has a lot of benefits: less tokens to output than a big JSON blob is going to be cheaper.
* OpenAPI specs are static, but MCP allows for more dynamic tool usage. This can mean that different clients can get different specs, or that tools can be added after the client has connected (possibly in response to something the client sent). OpenAPI specs aren't nearly that flexible.
This isn't to say there aren't problems. I think the transport layer can use some work, as OP sent, but if you play around in their repo you can see websocket examples so I wouldn't be surprised if that was coming. Also the idea that "interns" are the ones making the libraries is an absolute joke, as the FastMCP implementation (which was turned into the official spec) is pretty solid. The mixture of hyperbole with some reasonable points really ruins this article.
This is repeated everywhere, but I don’t get it. OpenAPI specs are served from an HTTP endpoint, there’s nothing stopping you from serving a dynamically rendered spec depending on the client or the rest of the world?
Personally I find OpenAPI spec being more practical since it includes not just endpoints with params, but also outputs and authentication.
Know all that from my own experience plugging dozens of APIs to both MCP/Claude and ChatGPT.
So this isn't the same as saying "this user agent gets X, this gets Y". It's more like "this client requested access to X set of tools, so we sent back a notification with the list of those additional tools".
This is why I do think websockets make more sense in a lot of ways here, as there's a lot more two way communication here than you'd expect in a typically API. This communication also is very session based, which is another thing that doesn't make sense for most OpenAPI specs which assume a more REST-like stateless setup.
I somewhat agree with author’s comments, but also want to note that the protocol is in the extremely early stages of development, and it will likely evolve a lot over the next year.
I think that no one (including me) anticipated just how much attention this will get straight out the door. When I started working on the registry, there were fewer than a few dozen servers. Then suddenly a few weeks later there was a thousand, and numbers just kept growing.
However, lots and lots of those servers do not work. Majority of my time has gone into trying to identify servers that work (using various automated tests). All of this is in large part because MCP got picked up by the mainstream AI audience before the protocol reached any maturity.
Things are starting to look better now though. We have a few frameworks that abstract the hard parts of the protocol. We have a few registries that do a decent job surfacing servers that work vs those that do not. We have a dozen or so clients that support MCPs, etc. All of this in less than half a year is unheard of.
So yes, while it is easy to find flaws in MCP, we have to acknowledge that all of it happened in a super short amount of time – I cannot even think of comparisons to make. If the velocity remains the same, MCP future is very bright.
For those getting started, I maintain a few resources that could be valuable:
* https://github.com/punkpeye/awesome-mcp-servers/
* https://github.com/punkpeye/awesome-mcp-devtools/
* https://github.com/punkpeye/awesome-mcp-clients/
And that's why it's so important to spec with humility. When you make mistakes early in protocol design, you live with them FOREVER. Do you really want to live with a SSE Rube Goldberg machine forever? Who the hell does? Do you think you can YOLO a breaking change to the protocol? That might work in NPM but enterprise customers will scream like banshees if you do, so in practice, you're stuck with your mistakes.
At the least, MCP needs to clarify things like "SHOULD rate limit" in more precise terms. Imagine someone who is NOT YOU, someone who doesn't go to your offsites, someone who doesn't give a fuck about your CoC, implementing your spec TO THE LETTER in a way you didn't anticipate. You going to sit there and complain that you obviously didn't intend to do the things that weird but compliant server is doing? You don't have a recourse.
The recent MCP annotations work is especially garbage. What the fuck is "read only"? What's "destructive"? With respect to what? And hoo boy, "open world". What the fuck? You expect people to read your mind?
What would be the point of creating GH issues to discuss these problems? The kind of mind that writes things like this isn't the kind of mind that will understand why they need fixing.
The actual protocol of MCP is…whatever. I’m sure it will continue to evolve and mature. It was never going to be perfect out of the gate, because what is?
But the standardization of agentic tooling APIs is mind bogglingly powerful, regardless of what the standard itself actually looks like.
I can write and deploy code and then the AI just..immediately knows how to use it. Something you have to experience yourself to really get it.
Kind of reminds me of the browser wars during 90s where everyone tried to run the fastest an created splits in standards and browsers what we didn't really det rid of for a good 20 year or more. IE11 was around for far to long
Whatever the transport evolves to, it is easy to create proxies that convert from one transport to another, e.g. https://github.com/punkpeye/mcp-proxy
As an example, every server that you see on Glama MCP registry today is hosted using stdio. However, the proxy makes them available over SSE, and could theoretically make them available over WS, 'streamable HTTP', etc
Glama is just one example of doing this, but I think that other registries/tools will emerge that will effectively make the transport the server chooses to implement irrelevant.
I think MCP will be a huge deal for Practal. Implementing Practal as an MCP server, I basically don't need a frontend.
[1] https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol...
> Simply put, it is a JSON-RPC protocol with predefined methods/endpoints designed to be used in conjunction with an LLM.
Is a spot on / simplest explanation of MCP, wonder why nobody use that or insist that it's usb-c for AI on their tutorials! Seeing this early can makes me understand MCP in 5 minutes
It was simple and elegant, the timing was just off. So the first shot at this problem actually looked quite good, and we're currently in a regression.
I’m working on some Go programs/tools with the explicit goal of describing existing servers in a language neutral manner to try to get some sanity into the mix.
I was reenergized to pick this back up because Google is working on a version so I want to get these tools ready.
Open to ideas and input, have been noodling on it for a bit now, lots not in form to share but figured I’d share early:
https://github.com/tmc/mcp
Oh, and most importantly, a vim syntax plugin for the .mcp file format.
This is what the tests look like, for both the tools and to validate the servers.
Many pass REST responses directly to LLMs that quickly leads to token burn. Wish providers took a closer look on the actual engineering practices for the servers.
Has someone seen a good implementation of an MCP server with a comprehensive test suite?
Absolutely terrible, no clear spec, absolute useless errors and/or just broken behaviour without telling what’s wrong. Reference implementations and frameworks are not working either, so only reverse engineering + trial & error until it runs, yaaay.
Feels like the early 2000 over and over again, trying to make something work.
XML is ugly and building APIs that describe both the data and available actions is tough.
Instead we picked JSON RPCs that we still call REST, and we inevitably run into situations like Alexa or LLMs where we want a machine to understand what actions are supported in an API and what the data schema is.
The WebSocket protocol is the most ideal choice for a bi-directional streaming communication channel, and the arguments listed in https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol... for "Why Not WebSockets" are honestly bewildering. They are at best thin, irrelevant and misleading. It seems as though they were written by people who don't really understand the WebSocket protocol, and have never actually used it.
The comment farther down the PR makes a solid rebuttal. https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol...
Here are the stated arguments against using the WebSocket protocol, and my responses.
---
Argument 1: Wanting to use MCP in an "RPC-like" way (e.g., a stateless MCP server that just exposes basic tools) would incur a lot of unnecessary operational and network overhead if a WebSocket is required for each call.
Response 1: There are multiple better ways to address this.
Option A.) Define a plain HTTP, non-streaming request/response transport for these basic use cases. That would be both DRAMATICALLY simpler than the "Streaming HTTP" HTTP+SSE transport they did actually define, while not clouding the waters around streaming responses and bi-directional communications.
Option B.) Just leave the WebSocket connection open for the duration of the session instead of tearing it down and re-connecting it for every request. Conceptualizing a WebSocket connection as an ephemeral resource that needs to be torn down and reconstructed for every request is wrong.
---
Argument 2: From a browser, there is no way to attach headers (like Authorization), and unlike SSE, third-party libraries cannot reimplement WebSocket from scratch in the browser.
Response 2: The assertion is true. You cannot attach arbitrary headers to the initial HTTP GET request that initiates a WebSocket connection, not because of the WebSocket protocol's design, but because the design of the browser API doesn't expose the capability. However, such a limitation is totally irrelevant, as there are plenty of other ways that you could decide to convey that information from client to server:
- You can pass arbitrary values via standard HTTP GET query parameters to be interpreted during the WebSocket handshake. Since we're initiating a WebSocket connection and not actually performing a GET operation on an HTTP resource, this does not create issues with caching infrastructure, and does not violate standard HTTP GET semantics. The HTTP GET that initiates a WebSocket connection is HTTP GET in name only, as the response in a successful WebSocket handshake is to switch protocols and no longer speak HTTP for the remainder of the connection's lifetime.
- Cookies are automatically sent just as with any other HTTP request. This is the standard web primitive for correllating session state across connections. I'll grant, however, that it may be a less relevant mechanism if we're talking about cross-origin connections.
- Your subprotocol definition (what messages are sent and received over the WebSocket connection) could simply require that the client sends any such headers, e.g. Authorization, as part of the first message it sends to the server once the underlying WebSocket connection is established. If this is sent pipelined along with the first normal message over the connection, it wouldn't even introduce an additional round-trip and therefore would have no impact on connection setup time or latency.
These are not strange, onerous workarounds.
---
Argument 3: Only GET requests can be transparently upgraded to WebSocket (other HTTP methods are not supported for upgrading), meaning that some kind of two-step upgrade process would be required on a POST endpoint, introducing complexity and latency.
Response 3: Unless I'm missing something, this argument seems totally bewildering, nonsensical, and irrelevant. It suggests a lack of familiarity with what the WebSocket protocol is for. The semantics of a WebSocket connection are orthoganal to the semantics of HTTP GET or HTTP POST. There is no logical concept of upgrading a POST request to a WebSocket connection, nor is there a need for such a concept. MCP is a new protocol that can function however it needs to. There is no benefit to trying to constrain your conceptualization of its theoretical use of WebSockets to fit within the semantics of any other HTTP verbs. In fact, the only relationship between WebSockets and HTTP is that WebSockets utilizes standard HTTP only to bootstrap a connection, after which point it stops speaking HTTP over the wire and starts speaking a totally distinct binary protocol instead. It should be conceptualized as more analogous to a TCP connection than an HTTP connection. If you are thinking of WebSockets in terms of REST semantics, you have not properly understood how WebSockets differs, nor how to utilize it architecturally.
Since the logical semantics of communication over a WebSocket connection in an MCP server are functionally identical to how the MCP protocol would function over STDIN/STDOUT, the assertion that you would need some kind of two-step upgrade process on a POST endpoint is just false, because there would not exist any POST endpoint for you to have interacted with in the first place, and if one did exist, it would serve some other purpose unrelated to the actual WebSocket connection.
---
In my view, the right way to conceptualize WebSocket in MCP is as a drop-in, mostly transparent alternative to STDIO. Once the WebSocket connection is established, the MCP client/server should be able to speak literally EXACTLY the same protocol with each other as they do over STDIO.
I'm using MCP locally on my laptop, the security requirements are different there than on a server. Logging can be done at the actual integration with external api level if you have standard clients and logging, which I do and push for.
To me what is important right now is to glue my apis, data sources, and tools, to the AI tools my people are using. MCP seems to do that easily. Honestly I don't care about the protocol, at the end of the day, protocols are just ways for things to talk to each other, if they're interesting in and of themselves to you you're focusing on other things than I am. My goal is delivering power with the integration.
MCP may be messy, but the AI tools I'm using them with seem just fine and dealing with that mess to help me build more power into the AI tools. That, at the end of the day is what I care about, can I get the info and power into the tools so that my employees can do stuff they couldn't do before. MCP seems to do that just fine. If we move to some other protocol in 6 months, I'm assuming I can do that with AI tools on a pretty quick basis, as fast as I'm building it right now.
More complex stuff you can build on the “outside”. So keeping it local seems ok, because it’s just the LLM facing part.
Tldr; it's json array passed to llms. Swagger would have sufficed. How and why youcome up with the array shouldn't matter. We shouldn't need 10000 redundant servers.
Because one is made for local and the other for connecting through the internet.
A spec is what I use to write an SDK.
And all of the sudden, everyone will expose their data through simple API calls ?
I see it working in a B2B context where customers demand that their knowledge management systems (ticketing, docs, etc...) have an MCP interface.
He feels infallible because he's smart enough to get into a hot AI startup and hasn't ever failed. He's read TCP 973 and 822 and 2126 and admitted the vibe or rigor but can't tell you why we have SYN and Message-ID or what the world might have been had alternatives one.
He has strong opinions about package managers for the world's most important programming languages. (Both of them.) But he doesn't understand that implementation is incidental. He's the sort of person to stick "built in MyFavoriteFramework" above the food on his B2B SaaS burrito site. He doesn't appreciate that he's not the customer and customers don't give a fuck. Maybe he doesn't care, because he's never had to turn a real profit in his life.
This is the sort of person building perhaps the most important human infrastructure since the power grid and the Internet itself. You can't argue with them in the way the author of the MCP evaluation article does. They don't comprehend. They CANNOT comprehend. Their brains do not have a theory of mind sufficient for writing a spec robust to implementation by other minds.
That's why they ship SDKs. It's the only thing they can. Their specs might as well be "Servers SHOULD do the right thing. They MUST have good vibes." Pathetic.
God help us.
Adj, something the speaker wants the audience to dislike without the speaker being on the hook for explaining why.
> screed
Noun, document the speaker doesn't like but can't rebut.
It's funny how people in the blue tribe milieu use the same effete vocabulary. I'll continue writing at the object level instead of affecting seven zillion layers of affected fake kindness, thanks.
Frankly I'm not sure why an ordinary REST service (just HTTP posts) wasn't considered ok, but I haven't used MCP yet myself.
What MCP got right was very powerful of course which I'd summarize as giving all AI-related software the ability to call functions that reside on other servers during inference (i.e. tool calls), or get documents and prompt templates in a more organized way where said docs are specifically intended for consumption by AIs residing anywhere in the world (i.e. on other servers). I see MCP as sort of a 'function call' version of the internet where AIs are doing the calling. So MCP is truly like "The Internet for AIs". So it's huge.
But just like JavaScript sucks bad, yet we run the entire web on it, it won't be that bad if the MCP protocol is jank, as long as it works. Sure would better to have a clean protocol tho, so I agree with the article.
— written by ai
Sure, if you’re running your own infrastructure, you’ve got other problems to worry about—and MCP won’t be the thing holding you back. Complaining that it doesn’t cater to old-school setups kind of misses the point. It’s built for the way things work now, not the way they used to.
The protocol is absolute mess both for clients and servers. The whole thing could have been avoided if they picked any sane bidirectional transport, even websocket.
It seems your knowledge is a little out of date. The big difference between the older SSE transport and the new "Streamable HTTP" transport is that the JSON-RPC response is supposed to be in the HTTP response body for the POST request containing the JSON-RPC request, not "some other long-running SSE stream". The response to the POST can be a text/event-stream if you want to send things like progress notifications before the final JSON-RPC response, or it can be a plain application/json response with a sing JSON-RPC response message.
If you search the web for "MCP Streamable HTTP Lambda", you'll find plenty of working examples. I'm a little sympathetic to the argument that MCP is currently underspecified in some ways. For example, the spec doesn't currently mandate that the server MUST include the JSON-RPC response directly in the HTTP response body to the initiating POST request. Instead, it's something the spec says the server SHOULD do.
Currently, for my client-side Streamable implementation in the MCP C# SDK, we consider it an error if the response body ends without a JSON-RPC response we're expecting, and we haven't gotten complaints yet, but it's still very early. For now, it seems better to raise what's likely to be an error rather than wait for a timeout. However, we might change the behavior if and when we add resumability/redilivery support.
I think a lot of people in the comments are complaining about the Streamable HTTP transport without reading it [1]. I'm not saying it's perfect. It's still undergoing active development. Just on the Streamable HTTP front, we've removed batching support [2], because it added a fair amount of additional complexity without much additional value, and I'm sure we'll make plenty more changes. As someone who's implemented a production HTTP/1, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 server that implements [3], and also helped implement automatic OpenAPI Document generation, no protocol is perfect. The HTTP spec mispells "referrer" and it has a race condition when a client tries to send a request over and idle "keep-alive" connection at the same time the server tries to close it. The HTTP/2 spec lets the client just open and RST streams without the server having any way to apply backpressure on new requests. I don't have big complaints about HTTP/3 yet (and I'm sure part of that is a lot of the complexity in HTTP/2 was properly handled by the transport layer which for Kestrel means msquic), but give it more time and usage and I'm sure I'll have some. That's okay though, real artists ship.
1: https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-03-26/bas...
2: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol...
3: https://learn.microsoft.com/aspnet/core/fundamentals/servers...
4: https://learn.microsoft.com/aspnet/core/fundamentals/openapi...
Exactly.
MCP is one of the worst 'standards' that I have seen come out from anywhere since JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) and the author rightfully points out the lack of engineering practices of a 'standard' that is to be widely used like any properly designed standard with industry-wide input.
> Increased Attack Surface: The multiple entry points for session creation and SSE connections expand the attack surface. Each entry point represents a potential vulnerability that an attacker could exploit.
JWTs have this same issue with multiple algorithms to use including the horrific 'none' algorithm. Now we have a similar issue with MCP with multiple entry points to chose from which is more ways to attack the protocol.
This one is the most damning.
> Python and JavaScript are probably one of the worst choices of languages for something you want to work on anyone else's computer. The authors seem to realize this since all examples are available as Docker containers.
Another precise point and I have to say that our industry is once again embracing the worst technologies to design immature standards like this.
The MCP spec appears to be designed without consideration for security or with any input from external companies like a normal RFC proposal should and is quite frankly repeating the same issues like JWTs.
Tell me which is more likely.
1. There is a cabal of companies painstakingly working together to make the most convoluted software possible from scratch so they can dominate the market.
or
2. A few people threw together a bit of code to attempt to get something working without any deep engineering or systematic view of what they were trying to accomplish, getting something to work well enough that it took off quickly in a time where everyone wants to have tool use on LLMs.
I've been on the internet a long time and number 2 is a common software paradigm on things that are 'somewhat' open and fast moving. Number 1 does happen but it either is started and kept close by a single company, or you have a Microsoft "embrace, extend, extinguish" which isn't going on here.
"It kind of breaks the Unix/Linux piping paradigm using these streams for bidirectional communication."
Uhm ... no? They were meant for that.
But the rest of the critique is well founded. "Streamable HTTP" is quite an amateurish move.
No they weren't. If we look at it from the perspective of pipelines (and not interactive programs that take input directly from the user and display output on the screen), stdin is for receiving data from the program in the pipeline before you, and stdout is for sending data to the thing in the pipeline after you. That's not bidirectional, that's a unidirectional flow.
STDIN means Standard INPUT.
STDOUT means Standard OUTPUT.
There is no design/hardware/software limitation to reading and writing to them at the same time. That's your bidirectional channel with that one process.
>stdin is for receiving data from the program in the pipeline before you, and stdout is for sending data to the thing in the pipeline after you
Yes, and you took that from my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43947777
Did you just wanted to ratify my argument, or is there something else you want to add?
In other words, you can’t emulate a stateful connection on top of stateless RPC—well, you can, but nobody does because it’d be slow and require complicated clients. Instead, they staple a few headers on top of RPC and assert that it’s just as good as a socket. Dear reader: it is not.
This isn’t an endorsement of AMQP 0.9 and the like or anything. The true messaging/streaming protocols have plenty of their own issues. But at least they don’t build on a completely self-sabotaged foundation.
Like, I get it. HTTP is popular and a lot of client ecosystems balk at more complex protocols. But in the case of stateful duplex communication (of which queueing is a subset), you don’t save on complexity by building on HTTP. You just move the complexity into the reliability domain rather than the implementation domain.
You won't be able to fully insulate yourself from those complexities, though. Unnecessary complexity causes user-visible bugs and incompatibilities. You want to reach for a framework that will abstract all this stuff away, but because of poorly-designed protocols like MCP, those frameworks will end up being more unreliable than they need to be, in ways that will leak out to you.
So as long as you're a developer working in one of those two languages you just take their code and run it, and all is fine. However for someone coming along trying to implement the protocol in a brand new language, it gets discovered that the protocol is insufficient and horrible and attempts to build based on the protocol are therefore doomed to fail.
I'm not saying MCP has already reached this level of chaos, but I'm just saying this is the failure pattern that's fairly common.
Everything looks great works snappy and fast, until you look deeper inside or try to get it to do more complex stuff.