What interactions with internal tools? If you can answer that question then the clankers can help you write a deterministic program for that same interaction and you only spend the tokens once.

▲

0x696C6961 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah that's a good idea. Then we should standardize these tools and find an easy way for agents to discover and use them. ... Oh wait

	▲	mjmas 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And call it not-closed API or something like that.

▲

piva00 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've been doing this myself but it's been extremely hard to get buy-in from the rest of the org. They keep churning MCPs for deterministic interactions while I have tons of little tools written by clankers, not only for clanker-use but also for my own use when needed.

Best of both worlds in my view.

▲

locknitpicker 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If you can answer that question then the clankers can help you write a deterministic program for that same interaction and you only spend the tokens once.

The MCP is the deterministic program.

You need to take a step back and look at the problem you're discussing. What's exactly this MCP thing? It's a protocol to allow agents and coding assistants to access tools, services, and data sources, through a standardized interface.

It's the interface for your deterministic program. That's it.

▲

8note 2 hours ago | parent [-]

they were suggesting that you take the agent out of the run time tool usage

	▲	locknitpicker 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> they were suggesting that you take the agent out of the run time tool usage That only applies if you are talking about a well established recurrent workflow. That's not how MCPs are used to begin with.