Hacker Remix

The Future of MCPs

172 points by tylerg 23 hours ago | 83 comments

freedomben 22 hours ago

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.

daxfohl 19 hours ago

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.

Garlef 7 hours ago

Interesting thought.

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)

daxfohl 4 hours ago

Hmm, in that example the MCP server is just a thin api wrapper though, so it wouldn't change anything by running locally, right? Like I could see where maybe a TikTok MCP server would benefit from running locally since that would allow it to expose a camera api, but I can't think of anything you could do with a local Airbnb MCP server that you couldn't do with a cloud one.

Nefariously, I guess since these things would be running in the background continuously, that would provide another avenue for companies to spy on you, so that may be a reason companies create local mcps even if there's no other reason to.

daxfohl 4 hours ago

Well maybe a local Airbnb MCP could have access to your phone to call the host. Or to your wallet to pay.

That may make more sense than having a separate "wallet MCP server" running locally and having the LLM coordinate the transaction. While the premise of MCP is to allow LLMs to do such things, idk if I want an LLM to be hallucinating with my credit card.

grahac 22 hours ago

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).

kitd 2 hours ago

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.

masterj 20 hours ago

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.

mirekrusin 19 hours ago

More like npm, not app store.

guideamigo_com1 22 hours ago

MCP might be one of the few technology pieces where more articles have been written about it than the actual use-cases being built.

It is like the ERC20 era all over again.

klik99 17 hours ago

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

spudlyo 17 hours ago

Remember “push technology”?

empath75 2 hours ago

Do you mean "notifications", ie a core feature of every computer and phone?

atonse 22 hours ago

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.

These could be done with an MCP-augmented agent.

esafak 21 hours ago

There is no saying that they will expose more functionality through the MCP API than their web site. I imagine the API will be more limited.

atonse 20 hours ago

No, but let me be more specific.

For example, when I search for flights, there might be situational things (like, "can you please find me a flight that has at least a 2 hour layover at <X> airport because last time i had a hard time finding the new terminal" etc.

Or an agent that will actually even READ that information from the airport website to see notices like "expect long delays in the next 3 months as we renovate Terminal 3"

Right?

The agent could have this information, and then actually look at the flight arrival/departure times and actually filter them through.

Other things like, "I can do a tuesday if cheaper, or, look through my calendar to see if i have any important meetings that day and then decide if i can pick that day to save $400"

These are all things that synthesize multiple pieces of data to ultimately arrive at something as simple as a date filter.

leo-notte 18 hours ago

that kind of synthesis is where current search interfaces fall short. the pieces exist in isolation like flight data, personal calendars, and airport notices, but nothing ties them together in a way that's actually useful. an agent using MCP could help connect those dots if the APIs are deep enough and the UX avoids feeling like a black box. the real challenge might not be the tech but getting providers to share enough useful data and trust whatever sits between them and the user.

troupo 19 hours ago

So, Yahoo! Pipes, but with magic and wishful thinking

itomato 4 hours ago

Also RAG. Pipes just consumed APIs, IIRC. SOAP at that.

But definitely web mashups all over again.

dkersten 19 hours ago

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.

__loam 21 hours ago

It's very funny to see people talking about an extremely thin protocol like this.

soulofmischief 21 hours ago

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.

klik99 17 hours ago

Yeah, it's a good thing to be talking about pie in the sky ideas, most of which won't really work. The few good ideas that survive internet critics picking apart the smallest details could be interesting

baalimago 11 hours ago

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 don't get it.

suninsight 3 hours ago

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.

lysecret 9 hours ago

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!

empath75 2 hours ago

> 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.

mindwok 4 hours ago

They actually can. I have found myself getting more use out of a terminal MCP and providing OpenAPI specs than bespoke MCP servers.

Bespoke MCP's right now are a convenience.

3np 22 hours ago

> 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.

cle 3 hours ago

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.

happyopossum 18 hours ago

> You didn't "build an MCP"

The author explicitly states he built 2 MCP servers, not 2 MCPs, so I don’t know where your beef is coming from

quantadev 13 hours ago

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.

szvsw 9 hours ago

On the other hand, IP addresses have crossed into the popular lexicon in exactly this manner… it’s common enough to hear people say “what’s my “ip?” or “are there any free ips?” or what are the IPs for x/y/z”.

I agree that it sounds stupid and incorrect, but that doesn’t necessarily mean using MCP as a metonym for MCP server.

falcor84 4 hours ago

Good point. Other examples are Wi-Fi (e.g. "What's your Wi-Fi?"), DNS (e.g. "You should change your DNS") and USB (e.g. "I only have 2 USBs on my laptop"). So who knows, maybe "MCPs" will catch-on.

quantadev 1 hour ago

I always say "The Google" though, so maybe I'm guilty as well of playing fast and loose with the Engrish Rangurage.

helloooooooo 20 hours ago

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!

esseph 20 hours ago

Hey look I found the individual willing to die on the "ATM Machine" / "NIC card" hill!

didgeoridoo 3 hours ago

I prefer “AT Machine”, then nobody can tell whether you’re talking about Automated Teller, All-Terrain, or Anti-Tank.

And that’s how you get them.

lizardking 14 hours ago

Honestly can't tell if this is very dry sarcasm or not

3np 13 hours ago

It's tired copypasta. Typically interpreted as "parent is a silly nitpicking neckbeard keyboard warrior".

hinkley 19 hours ago

“The map is not the territory.”

falcor84 4 hours ago

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.