Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

probably easier to just tell people: You want MCP? Add a "description" field to your rest API that describes how to call it.

That's all it's doing. Just plain ole context pollution. World could be better served by continuing to build out the APIs that exist.





Sometimes the actions you want to perform does not map cleanly into one or two API calls, or would be too messy to assume correct parsing. Maybe your UI is fine POSTing to /users and PUTing to /groups or whatever but giving the LLM a direct CreateUserAndAddToGroup action simplifies the task and keeps context cleaner.

This is very true. But why stop there?

Imagine a future where we have an evolved version of MCP -- call it MCP++.

In MCP++, instead of having to implement a finite list of specialized variants like CreateUserAndAddToGroup, imagine MCP++ has a way to to feed the desired logic (create user, then add that user to $GROUP) directly to the endpoint. So there would be something like a POST /exec endpoint. And then the /exec endpoint can run the code (maybe it's WASM for something)...

Wait a minute! We already have this. It's called programming.

You could have the LLM write code, so that any pipelining (like your example), aggregation, filtering, or other transformation happens in that code, and the LLM only needs to spend the output tokens to write the code, and the only input tokens consumed is the final result.

I definitely am not the first person to suggest this:

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

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

... but I can say that, as soon as I read about MCP, my first thought was "why?"

MCP is wasteful.

If you want LLMs to interact with your software/service, write a library, let the scrapers scrape that code so that future LLM revisions have the library "baked into it" (so you no longer need to spam the context with MCP tool descriptions), and let the LLM write code, which it already "knows" how to do.

What if your library is too new, or has a revision, though?

That's already a solved problem -- you do what you'd do in any other case where you want the LLM to write code for you: point it at the docs / codebase.


yesss, and OpenAI tried this first when they were going to do a “GPT store”. But REST APIs tend to be complicated because they’re supporting apps. MCP, when it works, is very simple functions

in practice it seems like command line tools work better than either of those approaches


Command line tools are my preference just because they're also very useful to humans. I think providing agents function libraries and letting them compose in a repl works about as well but is higher friction due env management.

> Just plain ole context pollution.

It would normally be a second context window to figure out what tool / agent to run.

My only quibble with MCP is in the usual AI bandwagon people are implementing for FOMO than business value. My experience is likely anecdotal though.


> Add a "description" field to your rest API that describes how to call it.

Isn't that swagger\grpc etc?


Also, keep your api small as all the tool call, DTOs and user messages (e.g. workflow recipes) add up to big context windows and accuracy confusion, at least in the latest models. I hope that gets resolved.

> World could be better served by continuing to build out the APIs that exist.

before LLM's and MCP the world was depreciating or locking down APIs




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: