Top
Best
New

Posted by maharshi365 1 day ago

MCP was always a bad idea?(maharship.com)
327 points | 326 commentspage 4
dmix 1 day ago|
These articles always assume the MCP is being used by technical people. MCP can be used via plugins on OpenAI/Claude marketplaces by random corporate users who don't know what a terminal is.
rimeice 1 day ago||
I’m not sure I agree that the frontier just know the apis right now, in my experience trying this there’s still a lot of faffing around trying to figure out the right parameters happily burning tokens and bloating context. Also the cost effective models to use in production for real agentic enterprise work absolutely still need the extra help and will do for at least the next 6 months.
maharshi365 1 day ago|
In my experience they are very good at figuring out the apis. Well designed clis matter here but I've been able to give llms clis and its been pretty good.
jgalt212 1 day ago||
is it easier for an LLM to figure out a CLI or a REST API?
dorianmariecom 1 day ago||
cli because the feedback loop is faster
flohofwoe 1 day ago||
Correct me if I'm wrong, but an MCP server still make a lot of sense for remote-controlling a UI application (like a game engine editor) which otherwise doesn't have any 'access points' for remote-control right?

An AmigaOS-style "scripting port" would work just as well, but AFAIK that's essentially what an MCP server is (a socket that implements a discoverable command protocol).

I would actually love if all applications and services could agree on a standard for scripting / remote-control. If the AI hype is what it takes to get there, then so be it ;)

unleaded 1 day ago|
Every few years we're all doomed to reinvent COM again.
hiop 1 day ago||
Surprised WebMCP hasn't come up here.

Of course you can raw dog it with "computer use" and just have the agent click around the UI, but exposing semantic actions directly from the site seems like a much cleaner interface.

adverbly 1 day ago||
Agree.

There are definitely pure MCP use cases.

For web apps though, WebMCP seems like an awesome enabler: better ux and better stakeholder alignment

brazukadev 1 day ago||
WebMCP isn't MCP (which is great).

WebMCP is much simpler and more useful, I have the impression it might just replace the original.

xnx 1 day ago||
Both MCP and other APIs put you at the mercy of the other party. Often that means that features will unintentionally drift from the "source of truth" human UI. At worst, capabilities will be intentionally limited.

Automating the human UI used to be difficult and fragile, but modern AI makes it much easier and change resilient.

darkoob12 1 day ago||
There are numerous applications that you don't need and don't want to give shell access to an llm.
vkaku 1 day ago||
LLMs were a bad idea. MCPs were the band-aid to get them closer to the real world and do something for recursive self improvement. Then LLMs became better suited for everyday use.

I'm tired of these kind of posts. This author is on my black pill list.

fg137 1 day ago||
The exact same thing has been discussed many times here on HN and elsewhere, yet the author did not bother to just look them up before posting these uninformed opinions, as if they just discovered something new. It seems a complete waste of time to go to a conference on MCP with that kind of understanding.
baakwu 1 day ago||
MCP systems always felt like hacks. I haven't ever found one that satisfactorily interacted with a system as well as a good command line tool.

They provide interaction for most of your GUI programs but often the limitations of the MCP systems leaves agents highly confused about how to execute something you see on screen, where command line systems the agents seem to work 99% of the time.

hypfer 1 day ago|
> The MCP Industrial Complex

Was that a real thing? I mean it must've been for it to be mentioned there, but, rephrased: what was the scale of that?

How many individuals were involved in that? 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? 100000?

More comments...