"[...] built for a time when LLMs weren’t that smart", which was roughly 1.5 years ago - unreal development.

MCP is an incomplete abstraction. It solves things in the right direction, allowing agents to interact with some given system via a controlled ingress. It's a fancy proxy, and by itself doesn't really do much to enable autonomous interactions.

I don't agree.

The real value of MCPs lays in providing a controlled interface to models.

The benefits of control are multiple; models getting better means that, if necessary, they can go around the limitations, but generally their adherence to it is desired.

Just have a route that describes your API endpoints in a machine readable format, eventually they'll come to some consensus and in the mean time this works well enough to allow LLMs to plan.

Some people can't appreciate that their local Claude code workflow isn't the only MCP usecase. If you don't need it, then don't use it.

I have a tool wrapper that captures the output of anything and allows the LLM to query it later, to save on tokens. It “smartly” truncates the output (basically like Node’s util.inspect) and allows the LLM to expand truncated content.

It basically is called like “capture some-cli” and it… captures the CLI output, outputting a subset of it + a handle to continue querying.

This for me solves the danger of a tool returning tons of content.

MCP is basically RPC, and it suffers all the problems of RPC like mechanisms. It has long round trips times, significant de/marshalling costs, coupling between caller and consumer, versioning issues, etc.

Over time I think we'll see an evolution towards client-side micro models that reduces RTT latency, and a message bus architecture that allows multiple local micro models to push queries to the server, continue working, and receive updates on various topic asynchronously. The channels or topics (like a blackboard system) would be accessible to multiple local agents, as would the results of tool calls.

Message bus systems are easier to version, write adapters for and debug than random CLI tools and web interfaces. MCP interfaces are not going anywhere, they are just evolving.

Isn't the whole point of an MCP is to increase somehow the determinism of how to communicate with a certain external system? MCPs feel to give easier guidance to the LLMs, rather than letting them extracting the knowledge on how to connect to a given system.

Without, I feel they are more confused on how to get an outcome, as they may try, infra or inter sessions, different approaches

Even if the premise is correct, bad ideas are often the first step towards a good idea.

I use myself the DaisyUI Blueprint MCP and it's totally worth it. Not even fable 5.1 without all that context and way of directing could work this well. At least, I feel is worth paying for that MCP.