←back to thread

237 points jdkee | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
whoknowsidont ◴[] No.45948637[source]
MCP was a really shitty attempt at building a plugin framework that was vague enough to lure people into and then allow other companies to build plugin platforms to take care of the MCP non-sense.

"What is MCP, what does it bring to the table? Who knows. What does it do? The LLM stuff! Pay us $10 a month thanks!"

LLM's have function / tool calling built into them. No major models have any direct knowledge of MCP.

Not only do you not need MCP, but you should actively avoid using it.

Stick with tried and proven API standards that are actually observable and secure and let your models/agents directly interact with those API endpoints.

replies(8): >>45948748 #>>45949815 #>>45950303 #>>45950716 #>>45950817 #>>45951274 #>>45951510 #>>45951951 #
jcelerier ◴[] No.45950817[source]
> LLM's have function / tool calling built into them. No major models have any direct knowledge of MCP.

but the major user interfaces for operating LLMs do and that's what matters

> Not only do you not need MCP, but you should actively avoid using it.

> Stick with tried and proven API standards that are actually observable and secure and let your models/agents directly interact with those API endpoints.

so what's the proven and standard API I can use to interact with ableton live? blender? unity3d? photoshop?

replies(1): >>45950829 #
whoknowsidont[dead post] ◴[] No.45950829[source]
[flagged]
nilslice ◴[] No.45951039[source]
What do all of the links below have in common? Do you know of another way you can control all of those applications via LLMs? Computer use?

https://github.com/ahujasid/ableton-mcp

https://github.com/ahujasid/blender-mcp

https://github.com/CoplayDev/unity-mcp

https://github.com/mikechambers/adb-mcp

replies(2): >>45951271 #>>45955037 #
growt ◴[] No.45951271[source]
The mcp part is not essential for the actual controlling of the applications. You could “rip out” the mcp functionality and replace it with something else. The only reason why the authors chose mcp is most likely that it was the first and therefore most common plugin interface for llm tools.
replies(3): >>45951322 #>>45951403 #>>45951426 #
theshrike79 ◴[] No.45951403[source]
MCP literally is the "something else", if you have a better idea in mind, now is the time to bring it out before the MCP train is going too fast to catch up.
replies(1): >>45957037 #
1. cstrahan ◴[] No.45957037[source]
(Not OP)

This is pretty well established. See for example:

https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/code-execution-with-mc...

https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode/

Code (including shell scripting) allows the LLM to manipulate the results programmatically, which allows for filtering, aggregation and other logic to occur without multiple round trips between the agent and tool(s). This results in substantially less token usage, which means less compute waste, less cost, and less confusion/"hallucination" on the LLM's part.

If one comes to the same conclusion that many others have (including CloudFlare) that code should be the means by which LLMs interface with the world, then why not skip writing an MCP server and instead just write a command-line program and/or library (as well as any public API necessary)?