When does MCP make sense vs CLI?

Posted by ejholmes 12 hours ago

When does MCP make sense vs CLI?(ejholmes.github.io)

294 points | 198 commentspage 6

nemo1618 7 hours ago|

This will happen with GUIs as well, once computer-use agents start getting good. Why bother providing an API, when people can just direct their agent to click around inside the app? Trillions of matmuls to accomplish the same result as one HTTP request. It will be glorious. (I am only half joking...)

CloakHQ 7 hours ago|

Half joking, sure, but the "click around the app" problem is already real for teams running browser automation at scale. The issue isn't the clicks themselves - it's that every Chrome instance looks identical to a bot detector the moment you spin up ten of them from the same machine. The fingerprint (canvas, WebGL, navigator properties, etc.) is basically screaming "I'm automated". Dealing with this from the ops side: the headache isn't writing the automation, it's keeping each browser session isolated enough that sites don't treat them as the same entity. MCP or CLI doesn't really change that underlying problem.

cjonas 7 hours ago||

MCPs are useful to deploy internally as an agent tool gateway for your organization or customers. That's a totally different use case than how most of us interact with agents (claude code / cursor). That said, there's only limited benefit over just using OpenAPI.

appsoftware 11 hours ago||

?? I'm using my own remote MCP server with openclaw now. I do understand the use case for CLI. In his Lex Friedman interview the creator highlights some of the advantages of CLI, such as being able to grep over responses. But there are situations where remote MCP works really well, such as where OAuth is used for authentication - you can hit an endpoint on the MCP server, get redirected to authenticate and authorise scopes etc and the auth server then responds to the MCP server.

mavam 10 hours ago||

Why choose if you can have both? You can turn any MCP into an CLI with Pete's MCPorter: https://mcporter.dev.

Since I've just switched from buggy Claude Code to pi, I created an extension for it: https://github.com/mavam/pi-mcporter.

There are still a few OAuth quirks, but it works well.

bartek_gdn 8 hours ago||

I've come to the same conclusion as op, created a CLI tool to work with Chrome sessions. It works well, and I'm planning to do some token comparison on this vs an MCP approach. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47207790

ejholmes 8 hours ago|

Neato! https://github.com/vercel-labs/agent-browser is a similar take here, and much better than the playwright MCP.

p_ing 11 hours ago||

Tell my business users to use CLI when they create their agents. It's just not happening. MCP is point-and-click for them.

MCP is far from dead, at least outside of tech circles.

jngiam1 7 hours ago||

I think if you want background agents with sandboxes and well scoped permissions, you want MCP to be your data protocol and security layer.

If you’re vibing and doing the open claw thing without any security concerns; then you’re absolutely right.

AznHisoka 11 hours ago||

In terms of what companies are actually implementing, MCP isnt dead by a long time. Number of companies with a MCP server grew 242% in the last 6 months and is actually accelerating (according to Bloomberry) [1]

https://bloomberry.com/blog/we-analyzed-1400-mcp-servers-her...

lakrici88284 11 hours ago|

Companies are usually chasing last year's trend, and MCP makes for an easy "look, were adopting AI!" bullet point.

AznHisoka 10 hours ago||

Right, but even if this is just a matter of "chasing a trend", it does have a network effect and makes the entire MCP ecosystem much more useful to consumers, which begets more MCP servers.

deadf00d 6 hours ago||

IMO the biggest issue with CLIs for agents is to know when the agent is allowed to type. When is the command fully proceed, and next tokens can now be generated.

entrustai 7 hours ago|

The CLI vs MCP debate is about input ergonomics — how the agent invokes tools. Both sides are arguing about the left side of the pipeline.

The harder unsolved problem is the right side: what happens to the output before it becomes consequential action. Neither a CLI nor an MCP server tells you whether the text the agent just generated is compliant, scoped, or admissible. That enforcement problem exists regardless of which invocation pattern you prefer.

The best CLI in the world doesn't help you when the agent produces a clinical summary that omits a contraindication or a financial disclosure that drifts outside regulatory bounds. That's a different layer entirely — and it's mostly being ignored while everyone argues about transport protocols.

More comments...