MCP vs Agent

On 26th Nov 2024, Anthropic introduced the world to MCP - Model Context Protocol. Four months later, OpenAI announced the adoption of MCP across its products, making the protocol the de facto standard of the industry. Put it another way, a few months ago, we were figuring out when something is a workflow and when it is an agent (and we still are). Today, the question is how much MCP Kool-Aid we should drink.

What is MCP?

MCP is a standard to connect AI models and external data sources or tools. This allows models to integrate with external systems independently of platform and implementation. Before MCP, there is tool use, but the integration is platform-specific, be it LangChain, CrewAI, LlamaIndex, and whatnot. An MCP Postgres server, however, works with all platforms and applications supporting the protocol. MCP to AI is HTTP to the internet. I think so, I was a baby when HTTP was invented.

I won't attempt to paraphrase the components of MCP; modelcontextprotocol.io is dedicated to that. Here is a quick screenshot.

If you have invested extensively in tool use, the rise of MCP doesn't necessarily mean that your system is obsolete. Mind you, tool use is probably still the most popular integration method out there today, and can be made MCP-compatible with a wrapper layer. Here is one from LangChain.

A system with both tool use and MCP looks something like this.

For a 4-month-old protocol, MCP is extremely promising, yet far from the silver bullet for all AI integration problems. The most noticeable problems MCP has not resolved are:

• Installation. MCP servers run on local machines and are meant for desktop use. While this is okay-ish for professional users, especially developers, it is unsuitable for casual use cases such as customer support.

• Security. This post describes "tool poisoning" and it is definitely not the last.

• Authorization. MCP's OAuth 2.1 adoption is a work in progress. OAuth 2.1 itself is still a draft.

• Official MCP Registry. As far as I know, there are attempts to collect MCP servers, they are all ad-hoc and incomplete, like this and this. The quality is hit and miss, official MCP servers tend to fare better than community ones.

• Lack of features. Streaming support, stateless connection, proactive server behavior, to name a few.

None of these problems indicates a fundamental flaw of MCP and in time all will be fixed. As with any emerging technology, it is good to be optimistically cautious when dealing with these hiccups.

MCP in SaaS

I work at a SaaS company, building applications with AI interfaces. I was initially confused by the distinction between agent and MCP. Comparing agent to MCP is apple to orange, I know. MCP is more on par with tool use (on steroids). Yet the comparison makes sense in this context: if I only have so many hours to build assistance features for our Customer Support staff, should I build a proprietary agent or an MCP server connecting to, say, Claude Desktop App, assuming both get the work done? Perhaps at this point, it is also worth noting that I believe office workers in the future will spend as much time on AI clients like Claude or ChatGPT as they do on browsers today. If not more. Because the AI overlord doesn't sleep and neither will you!

Though I ranted about today's limitation of MCP, the advantages are appealing. Established MCP clients, like Claude Desktop App, handle gnarly engineering challenges such as output token pagination, human-in-the-loop, or rich content processing with a satisfying UX. More importantly, a user can install multiple MCP servers on their device, both in-house and open-sourced, which opens up various workflow automation possibilities.

When I build agents, I noticed that a considerable amount of time went to plumbing - overhead tasks required to get an agent up and running. It couldn't be overcome with better boilerplate code, but still... An agent is also a closed environment where any non-trivial (and sometimes trivial) changes require code modification and deployment. The usability is limited to what the agent's builder provides. And the promise of multi-agent collaboration, even though compelling, has not quite been delivered yet. Finally, an agent is as smart as the system prompts it was given. Bad prompts, like the ones made by yours truly, can make an agent perform far worse than the Claude Desktop App.

Then why are agents not yesternews yet? As far as I know, implementing an agent is the only method that provides full behavior control. Tool call (even via MCP) in an agent is deterministic, and everything related to agent reasoning can be logged and monitored. Claude Desktop App, as awesome as it is, offers little explanation of why it does what it does (though that too can be changed in the future). Drinking too much MCP Kool-Aid could also mean giving too much control of the system to third-party components - the MCP clients - and can lead to an existential threat.

Conclusion

The rise of MCP is certain. Just as MCP clients might replace browsers as the most important productivity tool, at some point, vendors might cease asking for APIs and seek MCP integration instead. Yet it will not be a binary choice between MCP servers and agents. Each offers distinct advantages for different use cases.

• MCP allows cooperating a large number of tools, making it suitable for internal dog flooding and fast exploration. MCP would also see more adoption among professional users than casual ones.

• Agents being more controlled, tamed, and preferably well tested would be the default choice for customer-facing applications.

Within a year, we'll likely see a hybrid system where MCP and agent-based approaches coexist. Of course, innovations such as AGI or MCP going beyond its initial local and desktop use can change this balance. There is no point in predicting long-term future at this point.