To get this out of the way, you are an unpleasant person, but that doesn't mean you should be ignored though, so I'll reply.
> you couldn't technically point to anything to support your statements, but instead had to revert to religious zealotry and apologetics
> You wrote all of that just to counter your own stated position, because I think at some fundamental level you realize how non-sense it is.
You need to be specific and not make a blanket assertions like that if you want and honest dialog.
I take particular offense at you claiming "religious zealotry". Nothing in my post is even remotely definable as such. Yes, I use MCP, I also recognize when it's the right tool and when it's not. I don't think MCP is the solution to all problems. I also willingly acknowledge that other tools can fill the same gap. If anyone is being a religious zealot here, it's you and your crusade against MCP.
With your lack of specificity, it's hard to formulate a proper response to whatever you see as lacking in references. I would point out that I haven't see one link in all of your railing against MCP until this very response.
So, let's look at your link.
- I agree that websockets would have been a better choice than SSE+HTTP and StreamableHTTP. Auth for WS is a little bit of a pain from the browser, but it's feasible with some common conventions.
- I agree with their characterization of "web seems to be a thing we probably should support" (pretty sure I called that out in my post already...
- Their "kind of breaks the Unix/Linux piping paradigm" is laughable though. MCP is hardly the first or only thing to wire a 'server' to and application via stdin/stdout chaining and it's *very* much in the spirit of UNIX (IMHO, as someone working with UNIX systems for the last 30+ years)
- Again, I fully agree that the current HTTP transports are... lacking and could use a better solution.
- Rant about python aside (I agree BTW), well, they are just ranting actually. Yes, the documentation could use some help. Yes, the wasn't an official Go SDK until recently.
- Given this was written a while ago, it's not worth addressing the callous on SSE+HTTP beyond saying, 100% it was a bad design that appears to have been tacked on at the last minute.
- The observations about StreamableHTTP are mostly valid. They get a few points wrong, but the essence is right.
- Their security concerns are the same ones you'd have with any API, so I'm not sure how this is unique to MCP.
- Auth is a bit of a sore subject for me as well. MCP doesn't have an ergonomic workflow for multi-tenant sets and in-band oauth credential management. Again thoug, I don't disagree with the essence of their point.
After meandering they land on "just use stdio and websockets". So the whole rant is around the protocol transport.I agree the transport protocols need some TLC, but you *can* work with them now and new transports are something that's being worked on, even a WS transport.
None of that post talks about the actual protocol behind MCP, how it's succeeding/failing at filling the needs it's meant to address, or any real viable alternative for a standard for linking tools to agents.
If you feel like calling out specific point you feel I should back up with references, I can likely provide them. As with any post, much of the information is synthesized from a lot of places so things like the assertion that remote servers were clearly an afterthought is purely from my reading of the spec and the remote transports code.
>To get this out of the way, you are an unpleasant person
You are clearly very emotional about this, for whatever reason. But again it has no place on this forum.
>I would point out that I haven't see one link in all of your railing against MCP until this very response.
Because everything I've stated are fundamental facts about the technology. If you need sources for it, that means you are missing elementary concepts.
>After meandering
They literally point out several issues with the protocol that hamper observability.
You're being very verbose but not saying much and ignoring when things are directly answered for you. That's being generous.
Your position is like someone claiming lemongrass supplements cures COVID. Everyone is rightly pointing out that it's a placebo at best. Then your position is "well point out all the ways it DOESN'T help, everyone is doing it!"
Which is a really not-smart position to hold, to say the least.
The absurdity of this response is astounding. As it's clear you have no actual interest is an honest discussion I'll just drop off here and leave you to your echo chamber.
> you couldn't technically point to anything to support your statements, but instead had to revert to religious zealotry and apologetics
> You wrote all of that just to counter your own stated position, because I think at some fundamental level you realize how non-sense it is.
You need to be specific and not make a blanket assertions like that if you want and honest dialog.
I take particular offense at you claiming "religious zealotry". Nothing in my post is even remotely definable as such. Yes, I use MCP, I also recognize when it's the right tool and when it's not. I don't think MCP is the solution to all problems. I also willingly acknowledge that other tools can fill the same gap. If anyone is being a religious zealot here, it's you and your crusade against MCP.
With your lack of specificity, it's hard to formulate a proper response to whatever you see as lacking in references. I would point out that I haven't see one link in all of your railing against MCP until this very response.
So, let's look at your link.
- I agree that websockets would have been a better choice than SSE+HTTP and StreamableHTTP. Auth for WS is a little bit of a pain from the browser, but it's feasible with some common conventions. - I agree with their characterization of "web seems to be a thing we probably should support" (pretty sure I called that out in my post already... - Their "kind of breaks the Unix/Linux piping paradigm" is laughable though. MCP is hardly the first or only thing to wire a 'server' to and application via stdin/stdout chaining and it's *very* much in the spirit of UNIX (IMHO, as someone working with UNIX systems for the last 30+ years) - Again, I fully agree that the current HTTP transports are... lacking and could use a better solution. - Rant about python aside (I agree BTW), well, they are just ranting actually. Yes, the documentation could use some help. Yes, the wasn't an official Go SDK until recently. - Given this was written a while ago, it's not worth addressing the callous on SSE+HTTP beyond saying, 100% it was a bad design that appears to have been tacked on at the last minute. - The observations about StreamableHTTP are mostly valid. They get a few points wrong, but the essence is right. - Their security concerns are the same ones you'd have with any API, so I'm not sure how this is unique to MCP. - Auth is a bit of a sore subject for me as well. MCP doesn't have an ergonomic workflow for multi-tenant sets and in-band oauth credential management. Again thoug, I don't disagree with the essence of their point.
After meandering they land on "just use stdio and websockets". So the whole rant is around the protocol transport.I agree the transport protocols need some TLC, but you *can* work with them now and new transports are something that's being worked on, even a WS transport.
None of that post talks about the actual protocol behind MCP, how it's succeeding/failing at filling the needs it's meant to address, or any real viable alternative for a standard for linking tools to agents.
If you feel like calling out specific point you feel I should back up with references, I can likely provide them. As with any post, much of the information is synthesized from a lot of places so things like the assertion that remote servers were clearly an afterthought is purely from my reading of the spec and the remote transports code.