[chrislloyd]

MCP strikes me as roughly equivalent to HTML. Headline features like dynamic “tool” discovery (and more!) are solved well with HTML.

MCP is probably easier for clients to implement but suffers from poor standardization, immaturity and non-human readability. It clearly scratches an itch but I think it’s a local-minimum that requires a tremendous amount of work to implement.

[nsonha]

MCP is not that hard to understand why does it keep getting the wackiest comparison?

[chrislloyd]

MCPs goal is to standardize the transfer of application context and tool definitions to a client (let’s ignore prompts for the moment). That’s the same goal as Hypertext. In HTML, context is <p>, <img/> etc. and “tools” are <form>, <a> and <button>s. Instead of separating the two (like in MCP) - it’s all included in the same document.

I’ve used MCP quite a bit but perhaps I’m misunderstanding something? Happy to hear why you think it’s “wacky”.