Top
Best
New

Posted by nadis 17 hours ago

MCP is dead?(www.quandri.io)
309 points | 296 commentspage 2
ericyd 11 hours ago|
> Restaurant analogy:

> You sit down and 10 menus (MCP tool definitions) are spread across the table

> There's no room left for actual food (your work)

> Every time you order, the menus have to be pulled out again

This is a bad analogy. Ordering repeatedly is uncommon except for tapas restaurants. You could easily put food on top of menus, but more commonly, menus are removed after ordering, thereby freeing the table (context??) for the food. If you're going to try to explain things by analogy, it's worth putting effort into making it more relevant.

osigurdson 10 hours ago||
>> MCP consumes ~65x more tokens than the CLI approach.

For this example, there seems to be no explanation for the LLM to know when to use this curl command, etc. Is the idea that the linear API is known in the LLM weights already and therefore there is no need to include "the manual" in the context window? If so, it's a pretty narrow win.

didibus 10 hours ago|
Not just that, but they retracted this:

> Update: Since these measurements were taken, Claude Code has rolled out Tool Search with Deferred Loading, which loads MCP tool schemas on-demand and reduces context usage by 85%+. The context bloat described in Problem 1 is largely addressed for users on current Claude Code versions. The performance, debugging, and architectural arguments below still apply.

Because Claude Code only loads the tools it needs now, so context bloat is pretty much solved for MCPs.

big-chungus4 9 hours ago||
Isn't MCP just a way to give agent tools? When you are building your own agent, you can define the tools manually, but if you're using something existing like opencode, how do you add new tools as a user? You use the API for that which is currently MCP. Saying MCP is dead is kind of like saying tools are dead, which is definitely not true because all modern LLM agents are trained for tool use and you wouldn't have agents without it.

The problems listed on the article are problems with specific tools that have large tool descriptions. This has nothing to do with MCP. There is nothing in MCP that would cause the tool descriptions to use more context than they would otherwise.

helloplanets 8 hours ago|
You can create tools without using MCP for OpenCode: https://opencode.ai/docs/custom-tools/
nicman23 7 hours ago||
i mean yeah but is just a spec
helloplanets 6 hours ago||
What do you mean?
tanin 15 hours ago||
If you build connectors for yourself or your team, you probably can skip MCP because you can tell your friends to install CLI or whatever and provide extra prompts for your CLI.

If you have external users, then you have to use MCP, which comes with how to use each endpoint and etc. MCP is what their current apps e.g. Cowork, Cursor support out-of-the-box.

In that sense, MCP is very much not dead

d0mine 12 hours ago|
If you need a network boundary, what MCP provides that REST API + llms.txt can't do?
charrondev 9 hours ago|||
OIDC? Ease of deployment in a company?

You can have your IT department configure an MCP for the org, and your regular non-technical users click a button and login with their account the service. Then they get all the tool calls authenticated as themselves.

tanin 9 hours ago||||
The AI probably can figure out. However, Claude Code and other tools are built to support MCP. This means MCP is probably more reliable than using REST API + llms.txt.
jiggunjer 10 hours ago|||
Standardization. Who writes llms.txt? Everyone writes their own? Will agents still behave the same?
tyingq 2 hours ago||
The pro-MCP arguments sound a lot like the same ones for SOAP, J2EE, "Enterprise Service Bus" and other "once-dominant, now dead in favor of dev driven simpler solutions" tech.
jaynate 12 hours ago||
Feels like we’re continuing to trend toward deterministic workflows which may actually be okay in 90% of cases. Reality is there’s a lot of unnecessary token burn happening right now. Simple market dynamics will solve that, i.e., when token cost subsidies begin to fade away and we face the true cost of agent applications.
btbuildem 2 hours ago|
Bingo. All this agentic hype is just people discovering POCs. Yes you can hodgepodge semi-reliable solutions where you don't really know what you're trying to build so you wrap it in a layer than can sometimes approximate logic and decision making, so that you don't have to use logic or make decisions. Amazing.

Sooner or later you have to build the real thing, and the cost and slowness of token-based computation become unacceptable.

jaynate 19 minutes ago||
Yes, and the free-for-all building of nonsense (and insecure) apps by non engineers is probably going to slow down as well.
menacingly 3 hours ago||
I don't understand how anyone is still primarily thinking about single-user scenarios in 2026
sprakhya 2 hours ago||
I think mcp will become more important than ever.
Spiritus 10 hours ago||
CLIs have to be distributed. Also have to be kept up to date. An MCP doesn't t have to concern itself with backwards compatibility and can be changed willy nilly since it's essentially always up to date.

It's also easier to manage for non-tech people. Try telling the people over at HR or finance to install a CLI.

OpenWaygate 12 hours ago|
I used to compare MCP and Skill in my post (AI-assisted [1]) and also maintain a CLI/MCP/Skill for YouTube.

In my opinion, MCP is not dead. "MCP Belongs to Software Engineering", it ships existing concepts from software engineering into AI. CLI, MCP-tools, and OpenAPI are interchangeable to some degree, but MCP is more than tools; there are mcp-apps[2], lazy load in context[3].

[1]: https://log.ifor.dev/posts/mcp_vs_skill/

[2]: https://modelcontextprotocol.io/extensions/apps/overview

[3]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/tool-search

More comments...