Interesting thoughts regarding MCPs being the future App Store/Platform. I don't know that I agree but I don't necessarily disagree either. Time will certainly tell.
To me, MCP feels more like an implementation detail, not something that most people would ever use directly. I would expect that the future would be some app distributed through existing channels, which bundles the MCP client into it, then uses a server-side component (run by the vendor of course) to get the real work done. As much as I like the idea of people installing the servers locally, that future seems like a Linux nerd/self hosted type of activity. I just can't imagine a typical mac or windows non-power-user installing one directly. Just the idea that they would need to install "two apps" is enough to confuse them immensely. It's possible some might bundle the server too and run it locally as needed, but even in that case I think MCP is completely invisible to the user.
I'd expect "local MCP servers" will be generally installed as part of something else. Photoshop, or Outlook, or whatever could come with a local MCP server to allow chat clients to automate them. Maybe printer drivers or other hardware would do similar. I don't think there's much reason to install a cloud service MCP server to run locally; you'd just use the one provided in the cloud.
But maybe the companies would actually like to at least pipe the communication throught the cloud to get all the usage data. Here's one possible architecture:
local chat client
- talks to cloud LLM
- talks to local MCP servers
local MCP server provided by company
- connects to company cloud (this lets the company collect usage data)
- forwards tasks to the cloud
local tool (for example photoshop)
- connects to company cloud to get a users tasks
- executes the tasks (this lets the company use the users hardware, saving cloud costs)
Agree that for mainstream use it needs to be and will be hidden from the user entirely.
Will be much more like an app store where you can see a catalog of the "LLM Apps" and click to enable the "Gmail" plugin or "Shopping.com" plugin. The MCP protocol makes this easier and lets the servers write it once to appear in multiple clients (with some caveats I'm sure).
They feel quite similar to Alexa skills, packaged in a standard form. The app store analogy allows them to be searched by the end user.
TBH, it's quite surprising (and reassuring) that they have standardised as MCPs so soon. It normally takes a decade of walled gardens and proprietary formats before any open standards emerge.
MCP has a remote protocol. You don't need to install anything to add an MCP server, or rather, you won't once client support catches up to the spec. It will be a single click in whatever chat interface you use.
MCP's will be run by the service providers, and you'll have the ability to "link" them, just like today you can link a Google account to give access to Calendar, GDrive, ... in the future you'll be able to give a model access to the Google MCP for your account.
i wonder how granular the permissions will get though. giving model-level access to something like Gmail sounds powerful, but also like a privacy minefield if not done carefully. curious to see how trust and isolation get handled.
> Think of MCPs as standardized APIs—connectors between external data sources or applications and large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or Claude.
This is incorrect.
MCP is Model Context Protocol.
You didn't "build an MCP", you implemented an MCP server. Lighttpd is not "an HTTP", it's an HTTP server. wget is also not "an HTTP", it's an HTTP client. Lighttpd and wget are different enough that it's useful to make that distinction clear when labeling them.
dnsmasq is not "a DHCP", it's a DHCP server.
This distinction also matters because it is certain that we will see further protocol iterations so we will indeed have multiple different MCPs that may or may not be compatible.
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
I had the exact same reaction to the plural "MCPs". That's silly wording. There are no multiple MCPs. It's a single protocol. It's hilariously awkward wording to say you built "an MCP". It's like saying you built "an FTP", or "an HTTP". I guess every Web App is really just "an HTTP". We've been talking wrong all these years. lol.
Purists perpetually decry the zeitgeist's sloppy terminology.
Words that climb the Zipf curve get squeezed for maximum compression, even at the cost of technical correctness. Entropy > pedantry. Resisting it only Streisands the shorthand.
I've actually been thinking about this recently in the context of video games and virtual worlds in general, where when we speak about "the map", we are literally referring to the (virtual) territory. The more we digitize things, the more this distinction breaks down.
This particular way of seeing MCP that the article describes came up a lot during the early voice assistant ways - and I guess amazon did kind of attempt an app store approach to giving alexa more capabilities. In theory I like it! But in practice most people won't be using any one integration enough to buy it - like why go through the hoops to buy a "plane ticket purchasing app" when you do it maybe 4 times a year. I just don't see it playing out the way the author describes
It's a matter of organizing developer effort around a set of standards. Good architecture makes it easy to contribute to the ecosystem, and currently agentic tooling is the wild west, with little in terms of standardization. Now we are seeing more developer momentum around making our everyday tools accessible to agents.
I don't feel that way. Maybe the first examples have all been related to what software people do, but I think an MCP for a travel site would be a game changer.
There are so many things I want to tell a travel site that just doesn't fit into filters, so then end up spending more time searching all kinds of permutations.
People said similar things about smart contracts, yet here we are, with them being rather niche. I do agree that once the Alexa's and Siri's are LLM powered with MCP (or similar) support, these kinds of use cases will become more valuable and I do feel it will happen, and gain widespread use eventually. I just wonder how much other software it will actually replace in reality vs how much of it is hype.
yeah even with its extreme flaws of requiring two transactions per transfer, and not having any way of the destination reacting to the transfer without another transaction.
My prediction: there will be no standard protocol, clients will do whatever works for them, and devs will do whatever it takes to be installable on those clients. Just like mobile.
If LLMs are so smart, why do they need a custom "MCP" format to what's commonly known as a normal API? Why can't they just call normal APIs?
Extending this thought: why would there be any difference between offering data behind an API, and offering data behind a "MCP api"? At the end of the day, the underlying data will be the same (weather, stock market info, logs, whatever), it seems LLMs just needs this to be "standardized", otherwise it doesn't get it (?).
Furthermore..! LLMs can already crawl web pages just fine using (true) restful technologies. So why would there be need for other, new, special APIs when it's enough to expose the same data on a normal website?
I also did not get it, but now I get it a bit, I think.
Look at it this way. You have to get some work done - maybe book a flight ticket. So you go to two sites - first you go to flight fare comparison, then you book the ticket on the airline website. And you have to do it in code.
There are two ways you can do it.
First Way
1. Understand the API of the flight comparison portal. 2. Understand the API for the airline website. 3. Write code which combines both these API and does the task.
Second Way
1. Message a coder friend who knows the API of the flight comparison portal and ask him to write code to get the cheapest flight. 2. Message another coder friend who knows the API of the airline portal and ask him to book a flight.
Both ways are possible, but which one do you think is Less Work ? Which one is 'cognitively' easier ? Which one can you do while driving a car with one hand ?
It should be clear that the second way is easier. Not only is the second way easier, but if the task requires multiple providers and a lot of context, it might be the only way possible.
The first way is analogous to LLM's doing API calls. The second way is analogous to LLM's doing MCP Servers. MCP servers reduce the cognitive cost to do a task to the LLM - which dramatically increases their power.
> If LLMs are so smart, why do they need a custom "MCP" format to what's commonly known as a normal API? Why can't they just call normal APIs?
LLM's _can't_ just call APIs, because all they can do is generate text. The LLM can _ask_ you to run some code, but it has no ability to run code directly. MCPs are basically a way for LLMs to signal intent to make an API call, along with a list of white listed APIs, and documentation for using them, and preloaded credentials with whatever permissions you want to give them.
I don't understand why just using something like openapi specs didn't become the "normal" thing to do. We already have APIs for pretty much everything, why do we need a new protocol that wraps around an existing api?
Ye its also funny to me. On the one side people are saying: Look we have computer use, browser use etc. so we don't need an api! And on the other side saying, look apis are way too complicated we need our own protocol!
As someone else once said, I want a Grocery Shopping Engine. "Here's my shopping list, taking into consideration delivery times and costs, please buy this for the lowest cost from any combination of supermarkets and deliver by day after tomorrow at the latest."
If MCPs gave the LLMs a window into all the major supermarkets home shopping sites that looks like it's a step closer.
This requires arithmetics and constraint solving skills that are wildly out of reach to any pure-LLM platform. At the very least you would need interfacing with a real SMT or LP solver to get something that fits the bill.
Not OP but perhaps the following mcp tools: google maps api, nearest supermarkets, puppeteer their product listing pages?
Though to be honest not sure why you would need so much info - if I need lettuce or tomatoes for example, I know theyre gonna be at essentially every supermarket in my area....
MCP is perhaps the biggest attack vector I've seen people willingly adopt simply for FOMO. Nothing about implementing it is defined or tractable. Even logging its use is extremely complicated.
Readit News
To me, MCP feels more like an implementation detail, not something that most people would ever use directly. I would expect that the future would be some app distributed through existing channels, which bundles the MCP client into it, then uses a server-side component (run by the vendor of course) to get the real work done. As much as I like the idea of people installing the servers locally, that future seems like a Linux nerd/self hosted type of activity. I just can't imagine a typical mac or windows non-power-user installing one directly. Just the idea that they would need to install "two apps" is enough to confuse them immensely. It's possible some might bundle the server too and run it locally as needed, but even in that case I think MCP is completely invisible to the user.
But maybe the companies would actually like to at least pipe the communication throught the cloud to get all the usage data. Here's one possible architecture:
local chat client
local MCP server provided by company local tool (for example photoshop)Will be much more like an app store where you can see a catalog of the "LLM Apps" and click to enable the "Gmail" plugin or "Shopping.com" plugin. The MCP protocol makes this easier and lets the servers write it once to appear in multiple clients (with some caveats I'm sure).
TBH, it's quite surprising (and reassuring) that they have standardised as MCPs so soon. It normally takes a decade of walled gardens and proprietary formats before any open standards emerge.
This is incorrect.
MCP is Model Context Protocol.
You didn't "build an MCP", you implemented an MCP server. Lighttpd is not "an HTTP", it's an HTTP server. wget is also not "an HTTP", it's an HTTP client. Lighttpd and wget are different enough that it's useful to make that distinction clear when labeling them.
dnsmasq is not "a DHCP", it's a DHCP server.
This distinction also matters because it is certain that we will see further protocol iterations so we will indeed have multiple different MCPs that may or may not be compatible.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
The author explicitly states he built 2 MCP servers, not 2 MCPs, so I don’t know where your beef is coming from
Words that climb the Zipf curve get squeezed for maximum compression, even at the cost of technical correctness. Entropy > pedantry. Resisting it only Streisands the shorthand.
It is like the ERC20 era all over again.
There are so many things I want to tell a travel site that just doesn't fit into filters, so then end up spending more time searching all kinds of permutations.
These could be done with an MCP-augmented agent.
Who knows what MCP looks like in a decade?
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Extending this thought: why would there be any difference between offering data behind an API, and offering data behind a "MCP api"? At the end of the day, the underlying data will be the same (weather, stock market info, logs, whatever), it seems LLMs just needs this to be "standardized", otherwise it doesn't get it (?).
Furthermore..! LLMs can already crawl web pages just fine using (true) restful technologies. So why would there be need for other, new, special APIs when it's enough to expose the same data on a normal website?
I don't get it.
Look at it this way. You have to get some work done - maybe book a flight ticket. So you go to two sites - first you go to flight fare comparison, then you book the ticket on the airline website. And you have to do it in code.
There are two ways you can do it.
First Way 1. Understand the API of the flight comparison portal. 2. Understand the API for the airline website. 3. Write code which combines both these API and does the task.
Second Way 1. Message a coder friend who knows the API of the flight comparison portal and ask him to write code to get the cheapest flight. 2. Message another coder friend who knows the API of the airline portal and ask him to book a flight.
Both ways are possible, but which one do you think is Less Work ? Which one is 'cognitively' easier ? Which one can you do while driving a car with one hand ?
It should be clear that the second way is easier. Not only is the second way easier, but if the task requires multiple providers and a lot of context, it might be the only way possible.
The first way is analogous to LLM's doing API calls. The second way is analogous to LLM's doing MCP Servers. MCP servers reduce the cognitive cost to do a task to the LLM - which dramatically increases their power.
LLM's _can't_ just call APIs, because all they can do is generate text. The LLM can _ask_ you to run some code, but it has no ability to run code directly. MCPs are basically a way for LLMs to signal intent to make an API call, along with a list of white listed APIs, and documentation for using them, and preloaded credentials with whatever permissions you want to give them.
Bespoke MCP's right now are a convenience.
As someone else once said, I want a Grocery Shopping Engine. "Here's my shopping list, taking into consideration delivery times and costs, please buy this for the lowest cost from any combination of supermarkets and deliver by day after tomorrow at the latest."
If MCPs gave the LLMs a window into all the major supermarkets home shopping sites that looks like it's a step closer.
And how exactly will they do that?
Though to be honest not sure why you would need so much info - if I need lettuce or tomatoes for example, I know theyre gonna be at essentially every supermarket in my area....
I thought it might be "managed cloud providers", but perhaps I'm too optimistic for a change