[dijksterhuis]

> REST (Representational State Transfer) is a software architectural style

italics mine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REST

also REST is less about communicating, more about the high level user interface and the underlying implementations to arrive at that (although one could argue that’s a form of communicating).

the style does detail a series of constraints. but it’s not really a formal standard, which can get pretty low level.

—

standards often include things like MUST, SHOULD, CAN points to indicate what is optional; or they can be listed as a table of entries as in ASCII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII

dictionary definition of a standard:

> standard (noun): An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion

note that a synonym is ideal — fully implementing a standard is not necessary. the OAuth standard isn’t usually fully covered by most OAuth providers, as an example.

—

> The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is an open standard and open-source framework

again, italics mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Context_Protocol

MCP, the technology/framework, is like Django REST framework. it’s an implementation of what the authors think is a good way to get to RESTful webpages.

MCP, the standard, is closer to REST, but it’s more like someone sat down with a pen and paper and wrote a standards document for REST.

They aren’t the same, but the have some similarities in their goals albeit focussed on separate domains, i.e. designing an interface for interoperability and navigation/usage… which is probably what you were really asking (but using the word protocol waaaaaaay too many times).

[Aldipower]

Thanks, and call me wrong, I think "Protocol" in MCP is somehow misused. Sure it is somehow a protocol, because it commits on something, but not in the technical sense. MCI (Model Context Interface) would probably the better name?

[0manrho]

I agree that interface would be a better name than protocol, but Model Context Integration/Integrator would be even better as that is it's core intent: To integrate context into the model. Alternatively, Universal Model Context Interface (or integrator) would be an even better name imo, as that actually explains what it intends to do/be used for, whereas MCP is rather ambiguous/nebulous/inaccurate on the face of it as previously established further up-thread.

That said, I think as the above user points out, part of the friction with the name is that MCP is two parts, a framework and a standard. So with that in mind, I'd assert that it should be redefined as Model Context Interface Standard, and Model Context Interface Framework (or Integration or whatever other word the community best feels suits it in place of Protocol).

Ultimately though, I think that ship has sailed thanks to momentum and mindshare, unless such a "rebranding" would coincide with a 2.0 update to MCP (or whatever we're calling it) or some such functional change in that vein to coincide with it. Rebranding it for "clarity's sake" when the industry is already quite familiar with what it is likely wouldn't gain much traction.