This article entirely misses the value that MCP brings today.

Sure, there's almost no reason to use MCPs if you are running a full-blown terminal agent (Claude Code, Codex, Meta Muse, OpenClaw etc) with unfettered internet access - just let it call APIs directly.

If you want to operate something that's less YOLO than that, you'll find yourself wanting:

1. Control over exactly which external services it can access

2. A way to handle authentication that doesn't allow the agent to directly access API keys

3. A sensible UI to allow users to connect and authenticate further services

4. Strong audit logging for what's going on

MCP makes all of that so much easier to provide.

Thinking MCP is obsolete because full coding agents don't need it misses out on all of the other things we might want to build.

The premise of the article is that the Model Context Protocol (spelling it out to emphasize the core purpose) is inefficient in its current form. We can agree to that.

Now, does it mean agents don't need a protocol to connect to a server and discover its capabilities, tools, and distributed skills? I disagree.

> Agents with terminal access can replace most MCP servers

What should all other agents that don't have terminal access do?

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

MCPs are winning because within the ChatGPT and Claude apps, there are Plugin stores. These plugins are one-click installation MCP servers, with support for authentication. This is what business users are using.

The title feels clickbaity. Direct API, CLI and MCP all have their uses.

Direct access (Curl/own small function): This requires agent to have full understanding of the API spec. Yes, context can be protected using progressive disclosure, but this essentially means agent needing to understand the API again and again, before every use. Also, a typical API spec may or may not be agent-friendly. If there are nuances when calling an endpoint, where do we put these? Into OAS description? Works, but clunky.

CLI: It works beautifully, especially when a 3rd party CLI already exists for a complex backend. Assumes a well documented, agent friendly CLI, most CLIs are designed for human or CI/CD consumption. Talking about MCP taking up too much context, think about agent starting with my_cli --help, and going down through the switches and parameters one at a time to figure out how the CLI should be called. Less of a problem when calling a well know CLI (e.g. aws), but anything more niche (or custom) requires multiple turns to compose the final CLI command.

MCP: Has its issues, but offers an agent-native solution. Everything agent needs to know about a tool becomes available at once. In an enterprise environment MCPs can be served through an MCP Gateway, providing governance and permission management, this is quite contrast against running a CLI that requires agent to have execute permissions in its shell.

This doesnt match my experience. Yesterday, I was using Microsoft's Power BI Authoring MCP to make a semantic model from some SQL or CSV files. It was magical.

Microsoft has defined how to do that in the MCP. It's trivial to add the MCP to the machine and reliable in execution.

The alternative would be the model having to get the documentation directly from their documentation website, it sounds like. If this was the case, then MS would likely have great docs and probably support that markdown header... but everything hinges on finding a specific web page on the internet? Seems worse in every way than MCP to me.

It's not just the agent understanding the API, it's locking down the access they have. If I want to give access to an internal service in specific ways that the API doesn't lock down then an MCP that offers very specific queries, with protective controls and transformations in place is very useful.

MCP's monolithic design always felt like fighting a hydra; one fix created five new bugs elsewhere. Never understood why it gained traction.

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.

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.

CLI, API, MCP are all useful ways to connect. It just depends on the use case you're going for. I've used all 3 and find that they all have benefits.

MCPs are great when you just want that native out of the box low mistake way for agents to call your services it's great for certain cases.

I also developed a new method of using MCP called ADP (Agent Delegation Protocol) that sits on top of MCP where there is only 1 tool for the MCP, and when the agent wants to do something it just issues natural language commands and the ADP engine handles the rest it does all the routing etc... to the right sub-agents and executes tasks and return the results. (more on this soon).

Internally if you have a good orchestration system you do not need MCPs and can use APIs but those APIs should be designed for agents, IE based on DSLs, that project into internal operations. I do this too.

CLIs are great for testing things out, but agents often get things wrong, it's great for experimenting to see what works out of the box and what doesn't.

For me the perfect medium is a mix of MCPs and APIs. APIs are cheap if designed well, and if your workflow is a DAG then APIs are especially good because you already have a deterministic flow which means you can use small LLMs or even just something like Jev.

So my summary is:

CLI - Great for out of the box, things that are well known, where you want to verify the output

API - Great for low-cost large volume, highly repeatable workflows, that require high reliability you want your agent to execute without you having to hand hold.

MCP - Great for building debugging systems, or as an entry point to more complex workflows that you need your agent to have some ability to orchestrate.

I'm using MCP with ADP to route to large workflows that execute APIs internally for what i'm working on. So it's a mixture.

MCP lead to one good thing though

a lot of websites that never bothered to provide a REST API are now exposing MCP server because it has become popular, and you can use those servers to write normal automation for yourself, without plugging in any LLM etc

I don't think MCP is a bad idea, but using them incorrectly is.

CLI tools are great if you always use the same environment. But try using them from your iPhone, and they simply won't work; a remote MCP will work seamlessly.

HTTP APIs solve a different problem. APIs are designed to be predictable and consistent, so the client always knows the response shape in advance. The MCPs are designed to be dynamically discovered. This lets agents connect to new and unknown ones.

Trying to give APIs extra responsibilities so they can replace MCPs would just create more confusion. It's like creating an MCP server but calling it an API.

I always wonder why they didn't use Swagger|https://www.openapis.org. It addresses all the key description and security details.

I’m not sure about some of this — I still think there is some value to MCP as a gateway to private resources when API access doesn’t exist.

But please don’t try to redefine the Accept-Language header. These things are well defined for a reason and redefining things isn’t helpful. Trying to figure out protocols on the fly for LLMs is how we got into the current mess. For all of the cruft that W3C has, I think that working with standards committees could help the AI vendors here.

There's probably still value (if you want to call it that) in it as a proxy, both to bypass IP address rate limits and to add necessarily credentials.

There's also another aspect Quite a few API providers provide automatic renewal for MCP server registrations, but not for personal access tokens. This may be less relevant when models just drive the user's browser.

MCPs are indeed useless, they're very limited in functionality and frequently struggle with large requests or get wedged in bad states.

There is no reason not to use the native API directly.

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.

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

> Recently, a Vercel engineer called on harnesses to send the programming language the client prefers, so documentation sites can serve more specific examples. For example, adding Python could prioritize docs for the Python SDK instead of sending something generic.

I know this is pedantic, but IMO that should just be in the URL if the resource is going to be totally different. Accept-Language is already a bit weird for the same reason in my mind, but I think the intention behind it is the resource itself is attempting to communicate the exact same resource. Obviously, two different languages from two different cultures are going to have different interpretations of the same direct translation, but the intention is the service has at least tried to avoid that as much as possible.

Adding programming language into that same concept just makes it seems like you're serving both /docs/typescript/vx/... and /docs/python/vx/... from /docs/vx/... despite them (in theory) having many more differences in between implementations/context than that would imply.

Agents should read sitemaps. Does anyone's harness do specifically that when looking up documentation?

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.

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

It seems like OP needs to provide a solution to hiding the credentials from the model in order to suggest CLI-mode only, and also a solution to the problem of agents without shell access.

There are numerous applications that you don't need and don't want to give shell access to an llm.

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.

If you haven’t checked out AXI as an alternative to MCP I recommend checking it out. I’ve started wrapping almost every cli or MCP in an AXI bin as it’s more reliable and uses fewer tokens.

Why are they still having this debate in 2026 when CodeAct have existed for years, and the LLM's are getting much better at coding in the first place?

This issue isn't just about communication methods and technical details. It's also about “standards”, and it will become increasingly important over time. As we begin to integrate AI into everything-for example, into banks...

> 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?

MCP is a more controlled environment than yoloing an access token. Article missed the point entirely.

>Recently, a Vercel engineer called on harnesses to send the programming language the client prefers

oh would you look at that, Vercel suggesting to abuse how standard headers have been used for decades so it can send Accept-Language: rust because it's too lazy to ask for standardising an X-Prefers-Lang or anything else, and Shopify is here to shit on the internet too. Great.

Like JSON, MCP solves a problem without being overengineered. Both are painful for the overengineering type.

i feel like MCP was bad, but people are saying recent improvements have made it worthwhile now? i.e. stateless http

Well, SaaS don't do CLIs for extension APIs.

Plus the performance issues to restarting processes all the time.

CLI first

MCP is a good idea

JSON is a bad format/transport.

https://github.com/kunchenguid/axi

MCPs are a bad idea because they encourage token burn at runtime when a deterministic program that uses the API should be used.

Of course Mario, Sammy, Jensen et al. would be for this.

MCP for agents never made sense, especially when the tokens they consume a significant amount of tokens on a single request for a basic action, and sustained usage blows up you token costs.

The spec was poorly designed to begin with. Even saw some folks here thinking it was a good idea to enable MCP directly on a production database for what? Risking exfiltration of sensitive data for bad AI agents.

Given the increased security capabilities of these new models (Mythos, Astra, K3), it sounds like MCP would not be able to justify on making sense from a security perspective and would be a very bad idea to use anyway.

So no thanks and no deal.

"The attack surface wasn't big _enough_"

With MCP or HTTP, how do you implicitly limit access of the agent to a particular user? In other words, how do you avoid giving the agent access to perform an operation for any injected user? This is a basic security question.

I can do this trivially when my tool functions are closures that have the user-id pre-bound, but with MCP and HTTP I naively assume that the callables are pre-set.

You know you are getting old when Acronym's change on you.

Not sure why the title on HN ends with a question mark. It's grammatically incorrect and not in the original article

Somebody's got a case of Chesterton's Fence. They doesn't understand what MCP's for or how it's used, but they find it mildly irritating or unhelpful, so they demand it be removed.

MCP is an abstraction for remote tool calls with a standard interface. More specifically it's for when a local CLI will not do, and you want determinism and standardization. It also avoids all of the potential errors and guesswork involved with a model trying to "figure out" how to do something; you simply make one standard call, and the remote side "figures it out" for you, without failure.

If you can do what you need to do without MCP, then don't use MCP. When you eventually get sick of AIs playing guessing games with local tools/data, or spending lots of time to get functionality somebody already published as an MCP, or you need isolated control over the execution, maybe check it out again.