alt.hn

4/10/2026 at 2:01:48 AM

I still prefer MCP over skills

 https://david.coffee/i-still-prefer-mcp-over-skills/

by gmays

4/10/2026 at 8:03:38 AM

Don't focus on what you prefer: it does not matter. Focus on what tool the LLM requires to do its work in the best way. MCP adds friction, imagine doing yourself the work using the average MCP server. However, skills alone are not sufficient if you want, for instance, creating the ability for LLMs to instrument a complicated system. Work in two steps:

1. Ask the LLM to build a tool, under your guide and specification, in order do a specific task. For instance, if you are working with embedded systems, build some monitoring interface that allows, with a simple CLI, to do the debugging of the app as it is working, breakpoints, to spawn the emulator, to restart the program from scratch in a second by re-uploading the live image and resetting the microcontroller. This is just an example, I bet you got what I mean.

2. Then write a skill file where the usage of the tool at "1" is explained.

Of course, for simple tasks, you don't need the first step at all. For instance it does not make sense to have an MCP to use git. The agent knows how to use git: git is comfortable for you, to use manually. It is, likewise, good for the LLM. Similarly if you always estimante the price of running something with AWS, instead of an MCP with services discovery and pricing that needs to be queried in JSON (would you ever use something like that?) write a simple .md file (using the LLM itself) with the prices of the things you use most commonly. This is what you would love to have. And, this is what the LLM wants. For complicated problems, instead, build the dream tool you would build for yourself, then document it in a .md file.

by antirez

4/10/2026 at 11:16:55 AM

> Focus on what tool the LLM requires to do its work in the best way.

I completely agree with you. There was a recent finding that said Agents.md outperforms skills. I'm old school and I actually see best results by just directly feeding everything into the prompt context itself.

https://vercel.com/blog/agents-md-outperforms-skills-in-our-...

by neya

4/10/2026 at 9:15:04 AM

I feel like the MCP conversation conflates too many things and everyone has strong assumptions that aren't always correct. The fundamental issue is between one-off vs. persistent access across sessions:

- If you need to interact with a local app in a one-off session, then use CLI.

- If you need to interact with an online service in a one-off session, then use their API.

- If you need to interact with a local app in a persistent manner, and if that app provides an MCP server, use it.

- If you need to interact with an online service in a persistent manner, and if that app provides an MCP server, use it.

Whether the MCP server is implemented well is a whole other question. A properly configured MCP explains to the agent how to use it without too much context bloat. Not using a proper MCP for persistent access, and instead trying to describe the interaction yourself with skill files, just doesn't make any sense. The MCP owner should be optimizing the prompts to help the agent use it effectively.

MCP is the absolute best and most effective way to integrate external tools into your agent sessions. I don't understand what the arguments are against that statement?

by prohobo

4/10/2026 at 9:33:43 AM

My main complaint with mcp is that it doesn't compose well with other tools or code. Like if I want to pull 1000 jira tickets and do some custom analysis I can do that with cli or api just fine, but not mcp.

by xyzzy123

4/10/2026 at 9:40:47 AM

Right, that feels like something you'd do with a script and some API calls.

MCP is more for a back and forth communication between agent and app/service, or for providing tool/API awareness during other tasks. Like MCP for Jira would let the AI know it can grab tickets from Jira when needed while working on other things.

I guess it's more like: the MCP isn't for us - it's for the agent to decide when to use.

by prohobo

4/10/2026 at 11:10:43 AM

I just find that e.g. cli tools scale naturally from tiny use cases (view 1 ticket) to big use cases (view 1000 tickets) and I don't have to have 2 ways of doing things.

Where I DO see MCPs getting actual use is when the auth story for something (looking at you slack, gmail, etc) is so gimped out that basically, regular people can't access data via CLI in any sane or reasonable way. You have to do some insane oauth dance involving app approvals that are specifically designed to get between you and your data. The whole intent is to create a walled garden of "blessed" integrations.

The MCP provider then "helpfully" pays the integration tax for you (how generous!) while ensuring you can't do inconvenient things like say, exporting your own data.

As far as I can tell, that's the _actual_ sweet spot for MCPs.

by xyzzy123

4/10/2026 at 10:13:07 AM

You can make it compose by also giving the agent the necessary tools to do so.

I encountered a similar scenario using Atlassian MCP recently, where someone needed to analyse hundreds of Confluence child pages from the last couple of years which all used the same starter template - I gave the agent a tool to let it call any other tool in batch and expose the results for subsequent tools to use as inputs, rather than dumping it straight into the context (e.g. another tool which gives each page to a sub-agent with a structured output schema and a prompt with extraction instructions, or piping the results into a code execution tool).

It turned what would have been hundreds of individual tool calls filling the context with multiple MBs of raw confluence pages, into a couple of calls returning relevant low-hundreds of KBs of JSON the agent could work further with.

by insin

4/10/2026 at 11:04:42 AM

Hmm, but you can't write a standard MCP (e.g. batch_tool_call) that calls other MCPs because the protocol doesn't give you a way to know what other MCPs are loaded in the runtime with you or any means to call them? Or have I got that wrong?

So I guess you had to modify the agent harness to do this? or I guess you could use... mcp-cli ... ??

by xyzzy123

4/10/2026 at 11:03:37 AM

Meanwhile, I'm using MCP for the LLM to lookup up-to-date documentation, and not hallucinate APIs.

by addandsubtract

4/10/2026 at 9:59:25 AM

> MCP is the absolute best and most effective way to integrate external tools into your agent sessions

Nope.

The best way to interact with an external service is an api.

It was the best way before, and its the best way now.

MCP doesn't scale and it has a bloated unnecessarily complicated spec.

Some MCP servers are good; but in general a new bad way of interacting with external services, is not the best way of doing it, and the assertion that it is in general, best, is what I refer to as “works for me” coolaid.

…because it probably does work well for you.

…because you are using a few, good, MCP servers.

However, that doesn't scale, for all the reasons listed by the many detractors of MCP.

Its not that it cant be used effectively, it is that in general it is a solution that has been incompetently slapped on by many providers who dont appreciate how to do it well and even then, it scales badly.

It is a bad solution for a solved problem.

Agents have made the problem MCP was solving obsolete.

by noodletheworld

4/10/2026 at 10:44:20 AM

You haven’t actually done that have you. If you did, you would immediately understand the problems MCP solves on top of just trying to use an API directly:

- easy tool calling for the LLM rather than having to figure out how to call the API based on docs only. - authorization can be handled automatically by MCP clients. How are you going to give a token to your LLM otherwise?? And if you do, how do you ensure it does not leak the token? With MCP the token is only usable by the MCP client and the LLM does not need to see it. - lots more things MCP lets you do, like bundle resources and let the server request off band input from users which the LLM should not see.

by brabel

4/10/2026 at 10:06:33 AM

Let's say I made a calendar app that stores appointments for you. It's local, installed on your system, and the data is stored in some file in ~/.calendarapp.

Now let's say you want all your Claude Code sessions to use this calendar app so that you can always say something like "ah yes, do I have availability on Saturday for this meeting?" and the AI will look at the schedule to find out.

What's the best way to create this persistent connection to the calendar app? I think it's obviously an MCP server.

In the calendar app I provide a built-in MCP server that gives the following tools to agents: read_calendar, and update_calendar. You open Claude Code and connect to the MCP server, and configure it to connect to the MCP for all sessions - and you're done. You don't have to explain what the calendar app is, when to use it, or how to use it.

Explain to me a better solution.

by prohobo

4/10/2026 at 11:16:25 AM

You realize you can just create your own tools and wire them up directly using the Anthropic or OpenAI APIs etc?

It's not a choice between Skills or MCP, you can also just create your own tools, in whatever language you want, and then send in the tool info to the model. The wiring is trivial.

I write all my own tools bespoke in Rust and send them directly to the Anthropic API. So I have tools for reading my email, my calendar, writing and search files etc. It means I can have super fast tools, reduce context bloat, and keep things simple without needing to go into the whole mess of MCP clients and servers.

And btw, I wrote my own MCP client and server from the spec about a year ago, so I know the MCP spec backwards and forwards, it's mostly jank and not needed. Once I got started just writing my own tools from scratch I realised I would never use MCP again.

by saberience

4/10/2026 at 10:12:24 AM

Why couldn't the calendar app expose in an API the read_calendar and update_calendar functionalities, and have a skill 'use_calendar' that describes how to use the above?

Then, the minimal skill descriptions are always in the model's context, and whenever you ask it to add something to the calendar, it will know to fetch that skill. It feels very similar to the MCP solution to me, but with potentially less bloat and no obligation to deal with MCP? I might be missing something, though.

by frotaur

4/10/2026 at 10:17:53 AM

Why would I do that if the MCP already handles it? The MCP exposes the API with those tools, it explains what the calendar app is and when to use it.

Connected MCP tools are also always in the model's context, and it works for any AI agent that supports MCP, not just Claude Code.

by prohobo

4/10/2026 at 10:22:19 AM

> The MCP exposes the API with those tools, it explains what the calendar app is

So does an API and a text file (or hell, a self describing api).

Which is more complex and harder to maintain, update and use?

This is a solved problem.

The world doesnt need MCP to reinvent a solution to it.

If we’re gonna play the ELI5 game, why does MCP define a UI as part of its spec? Why does it define a bunch of different resource types of which only tools are used by most servers? Why did not have an auth spec at launch? Why are there so many MCP security concerns?

These are not idle questions.

They are indicative of the “more featurrrrrres” and “lack of competence” that went into designing MCP.

Agents, running a sandbox, with normal standard rbac based access control or, for complex operations standard stateful cli tooling like the azure cli are fundamentally better.

by noodletheworld

4/10/2026 at 10:30:05 AM

How would the AI know about the calendar app unless you make the text file and attach it to the session?

Self-describing APIs require probing through calls, they don't tell you what you need to know before you interact with them.

MCP servers are very simple to implement, and the developers of the app/service maintain the server so you don't have to create or update skills with incomplete understanding of the system.

Your skill file is going to drift from the actual API as the app updates. You're going to have to manage it, instead of the developers of the app. I don't understand what you're even talking about.

by prohobo

4/10/2026 at 10:38:52 AM

> MCP servers are very simple to implement

…

> Let's say I made a calendar app that stores appointments for you. It's local, installed on your system,

> and the developers of the app/service maintain the server so you don't have to create or update skills

…

> I don't understand what you're even talking about.

You certainly do not.

by noodletheworld

4/10/2026 at 10:44:49 AM

> So does an API and a text file (or hell, a self describing api).

That sounds great. How about we standardize this idea? We can have an endpoint to tell the agents where to find this text file and API. Perhaps we should be a bit formal and call it a protocol!

by raincole

4/10/2026 at 9:25:21 AM

[dead]

by pavelbuild

4/10/2026 at 10:14:42 AM

> MCP adds friction, imagine doing yourself the work using the average MCP server.

Why on earth don't people understand that MCP and skills are complementary concepts, why? If people argue over MCP v. Skills they clearly don't understand either deeply.

by siva7

4/10/2026 at 10:18:18 AM

I won't be surprised if MCP start shipping skills. They already ship prompts and other things exposed as resources. It is not even difficult to do with the current draft as skills can be exposed by convention without protocol changes.

Future version of the protocol can easily expose skills so that MCPs can acts like hubs.

by _pdp_

4/10/2026 at 10:18:40 AM

The more things change in tech, the more they stay the same.

The shoe is the sign. Let us follow His example!

Cast off the shoes! Follow the Gourd!

by insin

4/10/2026 at 8:43:36 AM

Although the author is coming from a place of security and configuration being painful with Skills, I think the future will be a mix of MCP, Agents and Skills. Maybe even a more granular defined unit below a skill - a command...

These commands would be well defined and standardised, maybe with a hashed value that could be used to ensure re-usability (think Docker layers).

Then I just have a skill called:

- github-review-slim:latest - github-review-security:8.0.2

MCPs will still be relevant for those tricky monolithic services or weird business processes that aren't logged or recorded on metrics.

by tomaytotomato

4/10/2026 at 9:20:15 AM

> Don't focus on what you prefer: it does not matter. Focus on what tool the LLM requires to do its work in the best way.

I noticed that LLMs will tend to work by default with CLIs even if there's a connected MCP, likely because a) there's an overexposure of CLIs in training data b) because they are better composable and inspectable by design so a better choice in their tool selection.

by ReDeiPirati

4/10/2026 at 10:09:19 AM

[dead]

by eblair

4/10/2026 at 8:07:03 AM

This argument always sounds like two crowds shouting past each other.

Are you a solo developer, are you fully in control of your environment, are you focused on productivity and extremely tight feedback loops, do you have a high tolerance for risk: you should probably use CLIs. MCPs will just irritate you.

Are you trying to work together with multiple people at organizational scale and alignment is a problem; are you working in a range of environments which need controls and management, do you have a more defensive risk tolerance ... then by the time you wrap CLIs into a form that are suitable you will have reinvented a version of the MCP protocol. You might as well just use MCP in the first place.

Aside - yes, MCP in its current iteration is fairly greedy in its context usage, but that's very obviously going to be fixed with various progressive-disclosure approaches as the spec develops.

by tow21

4/10/2026 at 8:11:21 AM

Context usage is a client problem - progressive disclosure can be implemented without any spec changes (Claude/code has this built in for example). That being said the examples for creating a client could be massively expanded to show how to do this well

by joshwarwick15

4/10/2026 at 8:55:09 AM

agree I don't get this discussion anyways Those are two different things, and actually they work well together..

by exossho

4/10/2026 at 9:27:19 AM

[dead]

by pavelbuild

4/10/2026 at 2:58:46 AM

I could not agree any less with the author. I don’t want APIs, I want agents to use the same CLI tooling I already use that is locally available. If my agents are using CLI tooling anyways there is no need to add an extra layer via MCP.

I don’t want remote MCP calls, I don’t even want remote models but that’s cost prohibitive.

If I need to call an API, a skill with existing CLI tooling is more than capable.

by plandis

4/10/2026 at 6:51:53 AM

I often just put direct curl commands in a skill, the agent uses that, and it works perfectly for custom API integrations. Agents are perfectly capable of doing these types of things, and it means the LLM just uses a flexible set of tools to achieve almost anything.

by stingraycharles

4/10/2026 at 6:57:43 AM

I think this is the best of both worlds. Design a sane API (that is easy to consume for both humans and agents), then teach the agents to use it with a skill.

But I agree with the author on custom CLI tooling. I don’t want to install another opaque binary on my machine just to call some API endpoints.

by notpushkin

4/10/2026 at 7:23:11 AM

Obviously opaque binaries are hardly an improvement over MCP, but providing a few curl + jq oneliners to interact with a REST API works great in my experience. Also means no external scripts, just a single markdown file.

by stingraycharles

4/10/2026 at 3:55:14 AM

I keep getting hung up on securely storing and using secrets with CLI vs MCP. With MCP, you can run the server before you run the agent, so the agent never even has the keys in its environment. That way. If the agent decides to install the wrong npm package that auto dumps every secret it can find, you are less likely to have it sitting around. I haven’t figured out a good way to guarantee that with CLIs.

by TheTaytay

4/10/2026 at 4:11:30 AM

A CLI can just be a RPC call to a daemon, exact same pattern apply. In fact my most important CLI based skill are like this.. a CLI by itself is limited in usefulness.

by Aperocky

4/10/2026 at 6:52:22 AM

In other words, a wrapper around an MCP that's less verbose.

by linkregister

4/10/2026 at 10:39:28 AM

MCP is a wrapper around it. The CLI-daemon RPC pattern is much older and is used all over the place in modern systems.

by throwup238

4/10/2026 at 7:15:53 AM

And in a skill, I can store the secret in the skill itself, or a secure storage the skill accesses, and the agent never gets to see the secret.

Sure, if I want my agents to use naked curl on the CLI, they need to know secrets. But that's not how I build my tools.

by usrbinbash

4/10/2026 at 9:28:57 AM

what stops the agent from echoing the secure storage?

what i see is that you give it a pass manager, it thinks, "oh, this doesn't work. let me read the password" and of course it sends it off to openai.

by lukewarm707

4/10/2026 at 10:08:12 AM

OpenAI is not the worst it could or would send it to.

by jgilias

4/10/2026 at 8:57:08 AM

[dead]

by seriousmountain

4/10/2026 at 9:27:52 AM

[dead]

by pavelbuild

4/10/2026 at 7:59:19 AM

This has been hashed to death and back. The mcp allows a separation between the agent and the world, at its most basic not giving the agent your token or changing a http header , forcing a parameter.

Well yes you don’t need those things all the time and who knows if the inventor of mcp had this idea in mind but here we are

by zaphirplane

4/10/2026 at 3:15:38 AM

Ok, but there are still many environments where an LLM will not have access to a CLI. In those situations, skills calling CLI tools to hook into APIs are DOA.

by woeirua

4/10/2026 at 3:40:33 AM

What are the advantages of using an environment that doesn't have access to a CLI, only having to run/maintain your own server, or pay someone else to maintain that server, so AI has access to tools? Can't you just use AI in the said server?

by egeozcan

4/10/2026 at 3:49:06 AM

The advantage is that I can have it in my pocket.

by DrJokepu

4/10/2026 at 7:54:58 AM

Why can't you have the agent running on its own server/vm in your pocket?

by patates

4/10/2026 at 4:14:01 AM

gateway agent is a thing for many months now (and I don't mean openclaw, that's grown into a disaster security wise). There are good, minimal gateway agents today that can fit in your pocket.

by Aperocky

4/10/2026 at 3:48:46 AM

Obvious example is a corporate chatbot (if it's using tools, probably for internal use). Non-technical users might be accessing it from a phone or locked-down corporate device, and you probably don't want to run a CLI in a sandbox somewhere for every session, so you'd like the LLM to interface with some kind of API instead.

Although, I think MCP is not really appropriate for this either. (And frankly I don't think chatbots make for good UX, but management sure likes them.)

by daemonologist

4/10/2026 at 3:59:42 AM

Why are they not calling APIs directly with strictly defined inputs and outputs like every other internal application?

The story for MCP just makes no sense, especially in an enterprise.

by nostrebored

4/10/2026 at 4:09:13 AM

MCP is an API with strictly defined inputs and outputs.

by ok_dad

4/10/2026 at 4:34:11 AM

This is obviously not what it is. If I give you APIGW would you be able to implement an MCP server with full functionality without a large amount of middleware?

by nostrebored

4/10/2026 at 9:06:35 AM

I’ve implemented an MCP tool calling client for my application, alongside OAuth for it. It was hard but no harder than anything else similar. I implemented a client for interference with the OpenAI API spec for general inference providers, and it was similarly as hard. MCP. SDKs help make it easy; MCP servers are dead simple. Clients are the hard part, IMO.

MCP is basically just an RPC API that uses HTTP and JSON, with some other features useful for AI agents today.

by ok_dad

4/10/2026 at 8:03:43 AM

If I gave you that could you implement Graphql from scratch without a large amount of middleware? Or are we now saying graphql api:s are not api:s?

by victorbjorklund

4/10/2026 at 7:01:58 AM

Sorry, could you rephrase that?

by notpushkin

4/10/2026 at 6:48:51 AM

Does MCP support authentication, SSO?

by oblio

4/10/2026 at 9:08:12 AM

Yes it’s literally just standard OAuth that’s defined in the MCP spec. I spent this week implementing an auth layer for my app’s MCP client gateway.

by ok_dad

4/10/2026 at 7:01:15 AM

It supports OAuth, IIRC. But I suppose the internal chatbot itself would require auth, and pass that down to the tools it calls.

by notpushkin

4/10/2026 at 7:27:07 AM

The chatbot app initiates an OAuth flow, user SSOs, chatbot app receives tokens to its callback URL, then tool calls can access whatever the user can access.

If you use the official MCP SDK, it has interfaces you implement for auth, so all you need to do is kick off the OAuth flow with a URL it figures out and hands you, storing the resulting tokens and producing them when requested. It also handles using refresh tokens, so there's just a bit of light friendly owl finishing on top.

Source: I just implemented this for our (F100) internal provider and model agnostic chat app. People can't seem to see past the coding agents they're running on their own machines when MCP comes up.

by insin

4/10/2026 at 7:59:19 AM

Neat!

by notpushkin

4/10/2026 at 5:13:34 AM

MCP really only makes sense for chatbots that don’t want to have per session runtime environments. In that context, MCP makes perfect sense. It’s just an adapter between an LLM and an API. If you have access to an execution engine, then yes CLI + skills is superior.

by woeirua

4/10/2026 at 8:05:59 AM

Only is doing a lot of work here. There are tons of use cases aside from local coding assistants, e.g., non-code related domain specific agentic systems; these don’t even necessarily have to be chatbots.

by 9dev

4/10/2026 at 8:11:46 AM

OP's point is about per session sandboxes, not them necessarily being "chatbots". But if you don't burry the agent into a fresh sandbox for every session you have bigger problems to worry about than MCP vs CLI anyway

by friendzis

4/10/2026 at 8:07:54 AM

> and you probably don't want to run a CLI in a sandbox somewhere for every session

You absolutely DO want to run everything related to LLMs in a sandbox, that's basic hygiene

by friendzis

4/10/2026 at 9:27:56 AM

You're missing their point, they're saying that you'd need a sandbox -> it'd be a pain -> you don't want to run a CLI _at all_

by williamdclt

4/10/2026 at 9:31:32 AM

[dead]

by ghywertelling

4/10/2026 at 3:26:35 AM

idk, just have a standard internet request tool that skills can describe endpoints to. like you could mock `curl` even for the same CLI feel

by hansonkd

4/10/2026 at 5:07:15 AM

Now you’ve replicated MCP but with extra steps and it’s harder to debug.

by woeirua

4/10/2026 at 3:27:28 AM

skills can have code bundled with them, including MCP code

by yawnxyz

4/10/2026 at 5:06:22 AM

The agent still doesn’t have an execution environment. It can’t execute the code!

by woeirua

4/10/2026 at 7:38:32 AM

well that's harness territory! give it the right harness/environment!!

by yawnxyz

4/10/2026 at 7:56:36 AM

Cool cool. Except.

What about auth? Authn and authz. Agent should be you always? If not, every API supports keys? If so, no fears about context poisoned agents leaking those keys?

One thing an MCP (server) gives you is a middleware layer to control agent access. Whether you need that is use-case dependent.

by lll-o-lll

4/10/2026 at 7:59:23 AM

Also resources - which are by far the coolest part of MCP. Prompts? Elicitation? Resource templates? If you think of MCP as only a replacement for tool calls I can see the argument but it's much more than that.

by mstipetic

4/10/2026 at 8:05:22 AM

> If not, every API supports keys?

How would MCP help you if the API does not support keys?

But that's not the point. The agent calls CLI tools, which reads secrets from somewhere where the agent cannot even access. How can agent leak the keys it does not have access to?

You ARE running your agents in containers, right?

by friendzis

4/10/2026 at 8:43:21 AM

> How would MCP help you if the API does not support keys?

Kerberos, OAuth, Basic Auth (username/password), PKI. MCP can be a wrapper (like any middleware).

> But that's not the point. The agent calls CLI tools, which reads secrets from somewhere where the agent cannot even access. How can agent leak the keys it does not have access to?

If the cli can access the secrets, the agent can just reverse it and get the secret itself.

> You ARE running your agents in containers, right?

Do you inject your keys into the container?

by lll-o-lll

4/10/2026 at 8:41:07 AM

what you want and what works may be very different things.

by rimliu

4/10/2026 at 2:54:35 AM

This isn't a zero-sum game or a choice of one over the other. They solve different layers of the developer experience: MCP provides a standardized, portable interface for external data/tools (the infrastructure), while Skills offer project-specific, high-level behavioral context (the orchestration). A robust workflow uses MCP to ensure tool reliability and Skills to define when and how to deploy those tools.

by alierfan

4/10/2026 at 9:28:19 AM

Hi, author here! I fully agree with your comment here and that’s exactly my point in the post: Different tools that work great for different tasks. If anything, the post is a take against treating Skills + CLI as a zero-sum replacement for MCP, and calling MCP dead/outdated

Especially portability is just not possible with Skills+CLI (yet). I can use the same MCP servers through remote MCP on my phone, web, iPad, in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Mistral and so on, which I can’t do with Skills.

by dvcrn

4/10/2026 at 8:22:08 AM

This is exactly right, and I'd add one more layer that the thread is mostly missing: this combination matters most when the agent itself is hosted in the cloud rather than running locally. Skills + MCP is the architecture for cloud-hosted agents - Skills give the agent its context and workflow, MCP tools give it reach into external services without the agent needing to manage credentials or runtime dependencies.

by chris_ivester

4/10/2026 at 6:42:44 AM

Completely agree. I don’t see why people view this as an either or decision.

Also worth mentioning that some paid MCP providers offer an actual value added. Sure, I can use curl or a self hosted crawler for web searches, but is it really worth the pain?

by zhdc1

4/10/2026 at 4:17:40 AM

MCP is just CLI wrapped in boxes.

CLI is the same API in more concise format. At minimum, the same amount of context overhead exist for MCP, but most of the time more because the boxes have size.

CLI can be secure, AWS CLI is doing just fine. You can also play simple tricks to hide secret in a daemon or run them remotely, and all of them are still smaller than a MCP.

by Aperocky

4/10/2026 at 7:48:57 AM

Also, the skills can be ignored or thwarted if the LLM feels like, while a policy at the MCP server level stays there.

by soco

4/10/2026 at 9:23:46 AM

Scanning through the comments here I am almost certain the majority of people in this thread run coding agents on-device. Skills that access already available resources is then more convenient and you can easily make the argument that it is more agronomic.

That being said, majority of users on this planet don't use AI agents like that. They go to ChatGPT or equivalent. MCP in this case is the obvious choice because it provides remote access and it has better authentication story.

In order to make any argument about pro/con of MCP vs Skills you first need to find out who is the user.

by _pdp_

4/10/2026 at 9:44:29 AM

I am not 100% sure I follow your train of thought.

Isn't in that case an API what they want?

An "MCP for a local app" is just an API that exposes the internal workings of the app. An "MCP for mixpanel" is just an API that exposes Mixpanel API behind Auth. There is nothing special about them for any type of user. It's just that MCP's were "made popular".

For the same type of user, I have built better and smoother solutions that included 0 MCP servers, just tools and pure API's.Define a tool standard DX and your LLM can write these tools, no need to run a server anywhere.

That is also what the author seems to be mistaken about - you don't need a CLI. A CLI is used because the DX is nice and easily permutable with all the preexisting bash tooling that is ingrained into every LLM's dataset. You don't need a .env file if you're using an API with a skill. A skill can include a script, or mentions of tools, and you are the one who controls these.

All in all, the whole "MCP vs Skill" debate online is mostly based on fundamental misunderstandings of LLM's and how they work, how harnesses work and how API's in general work, with a lot of it being fueled by people who have no relevant coding experience and are just youtube/twitter "content creators".

Some arguments against MPC's, no matter who is the user:

- MCP is just a noisy, hacky wrapper around an API or IPC (well, API behind IPC) - MCP's are too noisy for LLM's to be useful long-term, as they require a server. - You don't need an MCP, you need an easy accessible API with simple DX that the machine can use with as little context and decision making as required. - Skills are better than MCP because they basically encode the API docs/context in an LLM friendly manner. No need to run servers, just push text to system prompt.

by thecupisblue

4/10/2026 at 10:00:05 AM

You are mostly right except forgetting that not all SaaS companies want their users to shoot themselves in the foot by exposing the entire API surface and all of its quirks and risks to AI agents.

Furthermore, In many cases some APIs, for better or worse, are not even sufficient. For example, the Notion MCP has full text search capabilities. Their API allows searching by title only. I don't know why but I am sure there are reasons.

MCP looks redundant until you start working with real users that don't know a thing about AI agents, programming and security.

by _pdp_

4/10/2026 at 10:40:05 AM

Honestly it's on them, not on the users.

In today's day and age, it's absurdly easy to create a proxy API for your API that only exposes a subset of operations. And not like other "easy" things which depend on them having done "the right thing" before, like OpenAPI specs, auth scoping etc. This is so easy, even corporations consider it easy, and everything there is a PITA.

This is simple to make, to document and since it's a proxy you're also able to include all bunch of LLM friendly shenanigans and overly verbal errors with suggestions to fix.

Shit, I should obviously make a SaaS for this, huh?

by thecupisblue

4/10/2026 at 9:30:40 AM

> majority of users on this planet don't use AI agents like that

Source?

by Oras

4/10/2026 at 9:33:48 AM

Common sense. Most users are not running Claude Code or an on-device coding agent.

They're using ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude on the web.

by Jaxkr

4/10/2026 at 11:07:00 AM

But I downloaded Claude.exe /s

by addandsubtract

4/10/2026 at 10:01:12 AM

More agronomic means shittier, eh? I guess you meant ergonomic but funny typo

by vasco

4/10/2026 at 10:08:24 AM

Yep, and yes my bad. I typed the comment quickly without using AI.

by _pdp_

4/10/2026 at 7:33:01 AM

I agree for a slightly different reason - human stupidity.

Despite many decades of proof that automation simplifies and reveals the illogical in organisations, digitisation has mostly stopped at below the “CXO” level - and so there are not APIs or CLIs available to anyone - but MCP is cutting through

Just consider:

Throughout companies large and small, Agile is what coders do, real project managers still use deadlines and upfront design of what will be in the deadline - so any attempt to convert the whole company to react to the reality of the road is blocked

Reports flow upwards - but through the reporting chain. So those PowerPoints are … massaged to meet to correct story, and the more levels it’s massaged the more it fails to resemble reality. Everyone knows this but managing the transition means potentially losing control …

There are plenty of digitisationmprojects going on - but do they enable full automation or are they another case of an existing political arena building its own political choices in software - “our area in a database to be accessed via an UI by our people” - almost never “our area to be used by others via API and totally replacing our people”.

(I think I need to be more persuasive

by lifeisstillgood

4/10/2026 at 10:13:19 AM

I'm with you on this (I think). Digitising my org is much easier if I can assume my colleagues' agents will be acting on their behalf. Even if I can't convince most humans to cooperate with solutions, I can usually trust their agents to do so. MCP hides the wiring somewhat, which I enjoy.

by nimonian

4/10/2026 at 3:13:53 AM

The "only skills" people are usually non-technical and the "only CLI" people are often solo builders.

MCP makes a lot of sense for enterprise IMO. Defines auth and interfaces in a way that's a natural extension of APIs.

by grensley

4/10/2026 at 3:50:36 AM

I think many of us have been burned by the absolutely awful and unstable JIRA MCP and found that skills using `acli` actually work and view the rest of the MCP space thru that lens. Lots of early - and current! - MCP implementations were bad. So it’s an uphill battle to rebuild reputation.

by bikelang

4/10/2026 at 8:58:41 AM

`acli` doesn't cover Confluence and I found it limited compared to the MCP by sooperset on GitHub.

by walthamstow

4/10/2026 at 7:15:05 AM

Can you share more about acli?

Literally my biggest use case for MCP is Jira and Confuence

by hnlmorg

4/10/2026 at 3:39:08 AM

I built an internal company MCP that uses Google Workspace auth and injects a mix of guidance (disguised as tools) on how we would like certain tasks to be accomplished via Claude as well as API-like capabilities for querying internal data and safely deploying small apps internally.

I’d really love to get away from the SSE MCP endpoints we use, as the Claude desktop app can get really finicky about disconnects. I thought about distributing some CLIs with Skills instead. But, MCP can be easily updated with new tools and instructions, and it’s easy to explain how to add to Claude for non-technical people. I can’t imagine trying to make sure everyone in my company had the latest skill and CLI on their machine.

by bicx

4/10/2026 at 6:46:40 AM

Or just rapidly spinning up something.

Codex -> LiteLLM -> VLLM

           |____> MCP
Takes a couple of minutes to setup.

by zhdc1

4/10/2026 at 3:51:43 AM

I've started thinking of these systems as legacy systems. We have them. They are important and there's a lot of data in them. But they aren't optimal any more.

How we access them and where data lives is essentially an optimization problem. And AI changes what is optimal. Having data live in some walled garden with APIs designed to keep people out (most SAAS systems) is arguably sub optimal at this point. Sorting out these plumbing issues is actually a big obstacle for people to do productive things via agentic tools with these systems.

But a good way to deal with this is to apply some system thinking and figure out if you still need these systems at all. I've started replacing a lot of these things with simple coder friendly solutions. Not because I'm going to code against these things but because AI tools are very good at doing that on my behalf. If you are going to access data, it's nicer if that data is stored locally in a way that makes it easy to access that data. MCP for some SAAS thing is nice. A locally running SQL database with the data is nicer. And a lot faster to access. Processing data close to where it is stored is optimal.

As for MCP. I think it's not that important. Most agentic coding tools switch effortlessly between protocols and languages. In the end MCP is just another RPC protocol. Not a particularly good or optimal one even. If you had an API or cli already, it's a bit redundant to add MCP. Auth is indeed a key challenge. And largely not solved yet. I don't think MCP adds a whole lot of new elements for that.

by jillesvangurp

4/10/2026 at 7:21:21 AM

> Context Bloat: Using a skill often requires loading the entire SKILL.md into the LLM’s context window, rather than just exposing the single tool signature it needs. It’s like forcing someone to read the entire car’s owner’s manual when all they want to do is call car.turn_on().

MCP has severe context bloat just by starting a thread. If harnesses were smart enough to, during install time, summarize the tools provided by a MCP server (rather than dumping the whole thing in context), it would be better. But a worse problem is that the output of MCP goes straight into the context of the agent, rather than being piped somewhere else

A solution is to have the agent run a cli tool to access mcp services. That way the agent can filter the output with jq, store it in a file for analysis later, etc

by nextaccountic

4/10/2026 at 9:21:52 AM

> MCP has severe context bloat just by starting a thread

Hi, author here. The “MCP has severe context bloat” problem has already been solved with tool discovery. Modern harnesses don’t load every single tool + their descriptions into the context on load, but use tool search to discover the tools lazily when they’re needed. You can further limit this by telling the LLM exactly which tool to load, the rest will stay unloaded / invisible

> But a worse problem is that the output of MCP goes straight into the context of the agent, rather than being piped somewhere else

This is semi-solved as agents and harnesses get smarter. Claude Code for example does discovery in subagents. So it spawns a sub-agent with a cheaper model that explores your codebase / environment (also through MCP) and provides a summary to the parent process. So the parent won’t get hit with the raw output log

by dvcrn

4/10/2026 at 7:28:42 AM

> A solution is to have the agent run a cli tool to access mcp services.

lol and why do you need mcp for that, why cant that be a classic http request then?

by gum_wobble

4/10/2026 at 7:36:37 AM

At least when working with local MCP servers I solved this problem by wrapping the mcp tools inside an in-memory cache/store. Each tool output gets stored under a unique id and the id is returned with the tool output. The agent can then invoke other tools by passing the id instead of generating all the input. Adding attribute access made this pretty powerful (e.g. pass content under tool_return_xyz.some.data to tool A as parameter b). This saves token costs and is a lot faster. Granted, it only works for passing values between tools but I could imagine an additional tool to pipe stuff into the storage layer would solve this.

by mathis-l

4/10/2026 at 8:40:02 AM

This frames MCP vs Skills as an either/or, but they operate at different layers. MCP exposes capabilities and Skills may shape how capabilities are used.

Both are useful to different people (and role families) in different ways and if you don't feel certain pain points, you may not care about some of the value they provide.

Agent skills are useful because they're standardized prompt sharing but more than that, because they have progressive disclosure so you don't bloat your context with an inefficietly designed MCP and their UX is very well aligned such that "/SkillBuilder" skills are provided from the start and provide a good path for developers or non traditional builders to turn conversations into semi or full automation. I use this mental model to focus on the iteration pattern and incremental building [1].

[1] https://alexhans.github.io/posts/series/evals/building-agent...

by alexhans

4/10/2026 at 7:14:23 AM

> The core philosophy of MCP is simple: it’s an API abstraction. The LLM doesn’t need to understand the how; it just needs to know the what.

Wrong. It needs to "understand" both these things. The only difference is where and how the strings explaining them are generated.

by usrbinbash

4/10/2026 at 9:05:34 AM

That's an important point.

Whether it's tools, MCP or skills: they are fundamentally all just prompts. Even if the LLM is trained to recognize those and produce the right shape of tokens that validate most of the time.

But I wouldn't use the word "understand" here, because that builds the wrong intuition. I think a more useful term would be "get guided by" or "get nudged by". Even "recognize" is slightly misleading, because it implies too much.

by dgb23

4/10/2026 at 10:25:41 AM

Yeah well. MCPs are better for use cases where remote access is required, but for development use cases what you need in the majority of use cases is to manipulate local files. Skills are just the more natural solution here. You can argue whether Skills should come with more type information (MCPs are slightly better here), but otherwise it seems pretty clear to me that if you do not need remote access then MCPs are not really needed.

by kohlerm

4/10/2026 at 10:13:29 AM

The comparison to app stores is interesting but I think MCP registries solve a different problem. App stores are for humans browsing. MCP registries are for agents discovering tools at runtime based on the task at hand. The user never browses — they describe what they need and the agent finds the tool.

That is a meaningful distribution shift. Products no longer need to be marketed to end users if an agent can find and invoke them directly. Skills require the developer to install them ahead of time, which means someone already decided this tool was relevant.

by qrbcards

4/10/2026 at 10:35:26 AM

I think the key problem is that usage of MCP servers is not 'baked' into the LLM training - but API's and CLI's are already a part of training. So to use your MCP server, the LLM has to use additional intelligence which could have been used to do the actual work instead.

by rd42

4/10/2026 at 2:15:37 AM

Despite thinking this is AI-generated, I agree but everything has a caveat.

Skills are good for instilling non-repeatable, yet intuitive or institutional knowledge.

MCP’s are great for custom, repeatable tasks. After 5-10 runs of watching my LLM write the same exact script, I just asked it to hardcode the solution and make it a tool. The result is runs are way faster and repeatable.

by robotobos

4/10/2026 at 9:17:58 AM

I would go further than this. Call the script yourself (or via some other mechanism/program) and then give the results to the LLM.

The majority of processes don't need nearly as many decision making points as an agent could deal with and look somewhat like this:

1. gather raw information => script

2. turn it into structured data => script

3. produce an actionable plan => script/user/agent (depends)

4. validate the plan => user

5. narrow down the implementation workflow and the set of tools needed => user/agent

6. follow workflow iteratively => user/agent

Doesn't need to be this exact shape, but the lesson I learned is to quasi front load and structure as much as possible with scripts and data. That can be done with agent assistance as well, for example by watching it do the task, or a similar one, in freeform at first.

by dgb23

4/10/2026 at 9:53:09 AM

> Despite thinking this is AI-generated, I agree but everything has a caveat.

Definitely not AI generated. I wrote this during a non-internet flight. :)

by dvcrn

4/10/2026 at 2:44:54 AM

You could hardcode the script as a file within a skill too right? Skills can contain code, not just markdown files.

by ashraymalhotra

4/10/2026 at 8:15:16 AM

It is all about API contracts, right?

After the first run, you have a script and an API: the agent discovery mechanism is a detail. If the script is small enough, and the task custom enough, you could simply add the script to the context and say "use this, adapt if needed".

Or am I misunderstanding you?

by sjdv1982

4/10/2026 at 3:00:55 AM

> Skills are good for instilling non-repeatable, yet intuitive or institutional knowledge.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but can you explain this more? I've been using skills for repeatable tasks. Why an MCP instead?

by et-al

4/10/2026 at 3:24:14 AM

If the model can figure it out with tokens, but my institutional knowledge MCP tool can do it with a few CPU cycles, it’s faster and deterministic and repeatable.

by robotobos

4/10/2026 at 2:49:38 AM

> Skills are good for instilling non-repeatable, yet intuitive or institutional knowledge.

What about just putting that sort of thing in human-targeted documentation? Why call it a “skill” and hide it somewhere a human is less likely to look?

(Skills are nice for providing /shortcuts.)

by BenFrantzDale

4/10/2026 at 10:59:59 AM

Complete in synch with the author MCP and A2A for the win.

by pjmlp

4/10/2026 at 4:04:40 AM

Occams Razor spares none.

Everything will go to the simplest and most convenient, often both, despite the resistance of the complexity lovers.

Sorry MCP, you are not as simple as CLI/skill/combination, and no, you are not more secure just because you are buried under 3 level of spaghetti. There are no reason for you to exist, just like Copilot. I don't just wish, but know you'll go into obscurity like IE6.

by Aperocky

4/10/2026 at 9:38:50 AM

i use mcp for security. you can have an airgapped agent that can still call online tools. for example, web search.

however it can't get infected because there is no internet access.

the worst you can do is put your secrets in the web search box

by lukewarm707

4/10/2026 at 4:15:26 AM

Thanks for the 3x context usages because it need to follow the installation steps. and extra credit for the auth token leaks because it is sent in every call as context.

by j16sdiz

4/10/2026 at 7:24:10 AM

That's "Worse is better" rather than "Occam's razor".

by olalonde

4/10/2026 at 4:14:28 AM

A webpage with a form should be good enough.

by econ

4/10/2026 at 10:31:10 AM

Different techniques appropriate in different situations, I would decide on what's appropriate given the goals you have. Whichg is nearly always the answer to X is a better way than Y arguments.

by alienbaby

4/10/2026 at 10:03:00 AM

I think the worse thing is when someone takes a clearly defined list of steps to do something and writes it as a skill rather than just having AI write it as a script. It’s like people have forgot what scripting is

by chris_money202

4/10/2026 at 4:20:31 AM

My biggest gripe with skills is that even clear and explicit instructions are regularly ignored - even when the skill is brief (< 100 lines).

I’ll often see the agent saying it’s about to do something so I’ll stop it and ask “what does the xxx skill say about doing that?’ And it’ll go away and think and then say “oh, the skill says I should never do that”

by imron

4/10/2026 at 7:32:36 AM

I never understood why there is a discussion about it, one or the other… both serve a different purpose and are complementary.

by s-xyz

4/10/2026 at 10:01:02 AM

>>>The core philosophy of MCP is simple: it’s an API abstraction.

That's exactly the problem. As agents become better and can read API documentation themselves, WHY do you need an API abstraction?

by anshulbhide

4/10/2026 at 10:04:12 AM

Because not everything run from a terminal.

by senadir

4/10/2026 at 4:15:49 AM 

    > ChatGPT can’t run CLIs. Neither can Perplexity or the standard web version of Claude. Unless you are using a full-blown compute environment (like Perplexity Computer, Claude Cowork, Claude Code, or Codex), any skill that relies on a CLI is dead on arrival.
Incorrect observation. Claude web does support skills upload. I guess claude runs code_interpreter tool and filesystem in the background to run user uploaded skills. ChatGPT business plans too allow uploading custom skills in web.

I can see Skills becoming a standard soon. But the concern still holds. When you publish a MCP you liberate the user out of installing anything. But with skills what happens if the skill running environment don't have access to the cli binary or if it isn't in PATH?

by lewisjoe

4/10/2026 at 10:53:14 AM

I prefer peanut butter over jelly.

by TonyAlicea10

4/10/2026 at 2:51:04 AM

For indie developers like myself, I often use chat GPT desktop and Claude desktop for arbitrary tasks, though my main workhorse is a customized coding harness with CC daemons on my nas. With the apps, b I missed having access to my Nas server where my dev environment is. So I wrote a file system MCP and hosted it with a reverse proxy on my Truenas with auth0. I wanted access to it from all platforms CharGPT mobile, desktop. Same for CC.

For chatgpt desktop and Claude desktop my experience with MCPs connected to my home NAS is pretty poor. It(as in the app) often times out fetching data(even though there is no latency for serving the request in the logs), often the existing connection gets invalidated between 2 chat turns and chat gpt just moves on answering without the file in hand.

I am not using it for writing code, its mostly read only access to Fs. Has anyone surmounted these problems for this access patterns and written about how to build mcps to be reliable?

by ghm2199

4/10/2026 at 8:47:34 AM

There is one area where MCP typically has challenges - Not a technical challenge but a practical challenge.

Imagine you are creating an asset which requires multiple API calls and your UI is designed to go through a 10-12 step setup process for that asset. In practice even if we give one tool for LLM to one-shot it, or even if we break it down into 10-12 tools the points of hallucinations are much higher.

Contrast this with "skills" and CLI.

by rakamotog

4/10/2026 at 8:00:59 AM

As others have said I have found CLI tools much better

This is how I am structuring stuff in Claude Code

- Ansible setup github cli, git, atlassian cli, aws-cli, terraform cli tooling

- Claude hooks for checking these cli tools are authenticated and configured

- Claude skills to use the CLI tooling

by tomaytotomato

4/10/2026 at 8:33:06 AM

This tracks with my experience.

I started out building an MCP server for an internal wiki, but ended up replacing it with a simple CLI + skill because the wiki had no access control and the simpler setup was good enough in practice.

I think that's the important boundary, though: once access control, auth, or per-user permissions enter the picture, I'd much rather have MCP as the interface than rely on local tooling conventions.

by choam2426

4/10/2026 at 9:39:42 AM

Having developed mantyx.io, I believe that rest apis are still champion. MCP is nothing more than rest wrappers most of the time and skills are cli wrappers which in turn are rest wrappers.

by mantyx

4/10/2026 at 6:55:02 AM

I use both and don't feel they're mutually exclusive.

E.g. if I have some ElasticSearch cluster, I use a skill to describe the data, and if I ask the LLM to write code that queries ElasticSearch but to test it first it can use a combination of skill + MCP to actually run a query.

I think this model works nicely.

by Xenoamorphous

4/10/2026 at 11:03:35 AM

They’re different things. You can have skills using MCP.

by throwpoaster

4/10/2026 at 6:54:43 AM

100% MCPs truly give the agent tools and allow the agent to make better informed decisions given you can have configured the right MCP tools. Skills are good for knowledge and general guidelines. They give context to the agent, and I have seen some skills being excessively long that could into eat into the context window of the agent. This tool https://protomcp.io/ helps a lot with testing MCP servers before integrating into the agent workflow. You can even see the agent call different tools in real time and view the trace.

by michaelashley29

4/10/2026 at 2:56:48 AM

This is the same as saying "I still prefer hammer over screwdriver".

by leonidasv

4/10/2026 at 10:52:35 AM

Seriously, the only drawback of MCP is its name. If it were named "API discovery protocol" (which is what it is) none of these debates would have existed.

API vs MCP sounds like a real debate, but it really isn't. It's "API vs API discovery protocol." See how asinine it sounds if we call things for what they are.

by raincole

4/10/2026 at 9:45:45 AM

Like saying I prefer websites over CLI, or bicycles over canoes. Chisels over planes. Depends what you are trying to achieve.

by mememememememo

4/10/2026 at 3:19:05 AM

Anthropic says that Skills and MCPs are complementary, and frankly the pure Skills zealots tend to miss that in enterprise environments you’ll have chatbots or the like that don’t have access to a full CLI. It doesn’t matter if your skills tell the agent exactly what to do if they can’t execute the commands. Also, MCP is better for restricted environments because you know exactly what it can or cannot do. That’s why MCP will exist for some time still. They solve distinct problem sets.

by woeirua

4/10/2026 at 4:16:27 AM

> Also, MCP is better for restricted environments because you know exactly what it can or cannot do.

The continuous exploits of MCP despite limited adoption really makes this seem wrong.

by nostrebored

4/10/2026 at 9:25:13 AM

I think both will stick around because they solve two different problems. 1) what are you able to do (skills) 2) which tools you have to do it (mcp)

by fedeb95

4/10/2026 at 8:45:03 AM

the best agent framework in my opinion is Pi. Pi avoids MCP thats a good thing. why assume that the planet will migrate from HTTP to MCP? no, instead lets assume we have client code we can call. we already have a rich ecosystem of HTTP services and packages. and if we assume a rewrite for agents we probably wouldn't come up with MCP but something more powerful.

by bachback

4/10/2026 at 7:03:39 AM

CLI is massively superior to MCP in my experience. First, because I also understand what's going on and do it myself if necessary. Second because it's so much cheaper in terms of tokens it's not even funny

by qalmakka

4/10/2026 at 4:11:24 AM

People in the comments still confused about “agentic development” vs. “agentic development”. One uses the cli best, while the other cannot use a cli very well.

The first is using agents locally to develop.

The second is developing an agent. Not necessarily for coding, mind you. Not even for just text sometimes.

They are different cases, MCP is great for the latter.

by ok_dad

4/10/2026 at 4:18:33 AM

I still use vanilla Claude Code without MCP or skills, am I in the minority? Not trying to be a luddite.

by medbar

4/10/2026 at 6:47:26 AM

Me too just use AGENTS.md and it seems to work. I don't understand what problem MCP is trying to solve and skills just sounds like something you can do in AGENTS.md

What am I missing out on?

by tim-projects

4/10/2026 at 6:49:00 AM

I would guess the top 10% of actual performers do the same - the people who talk about harnesses and chain multiple systems together etc will be mid table somewhere

by blitzar

4/10/2026 at 7:04:16 AM

The whole article serves just to promote his SaaS.

by nodomain

4/10/2026 at 6:59:31 AM

Not same tools, different purpose from my opinion

by pjmalandrino

4/10/2026 at 7:07:17 AM

Remote MCP solve the delivery and update issues just like saas and browsers did for human users. Not much more to it really

by baq

4/10/2026 at 3:53:16 AM

Or use both. Remote MCPs are secure, CLI allows for programmatic execution. Use bash to run remote MCPs.

I built this to solve this exact problem. https://github.com/turlockmike/murl

by turlockmike

4/10/2026 at 4:09:50 AM

What about remote MCPs lend themselves to security? For instance, do you think that it is more secure than a traditional endpoint?

by nostrebored

4/10/2026 at 4:18:32 AM

MCPs are basically just JSON-rpc. The benefit is that if you have applications that require an API key, you can build a server to control access (especially for enterprise). It's the same as REST apis, except by following a specific convention we can take advantage of generic tools (like the one I built) and means you don't need to rely on poor documentations to connect or train a model to use your very specific CLI.

by turlockmike

4/10/2026 at 4:30:03 AM

But if you have customer facing APIs then all of these problems were already solved in an enterprise context. You can force an oauth flow from skills if you want.

I don’t think that CLIs are the path forward either, but you certainly don’t have to teach a model how to use them. We’ve made internal CLIs that adhere to no best practices and expose limited docs. Models since 4o have used them with no issue.

The amount of terminal bench data is just much higher and more predictable in rl environments. Getting a non thinking model to use an MCP server, even hosted products, is an exercise in frustration compared to exposing a cli.

A lot of our work is over voice, and I’ve found zero MCPs that I haven’t immediately wanted to wrap in a tool. I’ve actually had zero MCPs perform at all (most recently last week with a dwh MCP and opus 4.6, where even the easiest queries did not work at all).

by nostrebored

4/10/2026 at 8:03:56 AM

Huh, I think the author might be deliberately ignoring how MCP works?

- "CLIs need to be published, managed, and installed" -- same for MCP servers which you have to define in your config, and they frequently use some kind of "npx mcp-whatever" call.

- "Where do you put the API tokens required to authenticate?" -- where does an MCP server put them? In your home folder? Some .env file? The keychain? Same like CLI tools.

- "Some tools support installing skills via npx skills, but that only works in Codex and Claude Code, not Claude Cowork or standard Claude" -- sure, but you also can't universally define MCP servers for all those tools. You have to go ahead and edit the config anyway.

- "Using a skill often requires loading the entire SKILL.md into the LLM’s context window, rather than just exposing the single tool signature it needs" -- yeah, but it's on-demand rather than exposing ALL MCP servers' tool signatures. Have you ever tried to use playwright MCP?

I just don't buy the "without any setup" argument.

by slhck

4/10/2026 at 10:20:25 AM

MCP is too thristy

by nathias

4/10/2026 at 4:20:13 AM

AI tools for non technical users that can work on browsers and mobile app will be super powerful. I think MCPs are currently the best way to reach this audience.

by heckintime

4/10/2026 at 4:26:53 AM

Different tools for different jobs man... I prefer the right tool for the job, and both skills and MCP seem necessary. Do you also prefer forks over spoons?

by latentsea

4/10/2026 at 6:51:19 AM

> Do you also prefer forks over spoons?

On the 8th day god created the spork.

by blitzar

4/10/2026 at 6:38:10 AM

MCP pollutes the context, if you dont care about wasting context token for all MCP tools, go ahead and use MCP, but you should know that cli tool+skill can perfectly replace it with less token overhead and better matching due to skill's front matter

by bijowo1676

4/10/2026 at 9:18:16 AM

Sure but on the flip side, skills not being in context means that for many harnesses, the model simply never finds them. Whether MCP or Skills are "better" depends extremely heavily on the context management functionality of your harness because if you use a relatively naive harness (i.e. one that implements MCP and Skills in a straightforward way), MCPs will generally be more effective, especially if your model is local-only (i.e. dumb), but at the cost of context.

by anaisbetts

4/10/2026 at 6:40:20 AM

That really depends on how your harness implements MCP client. There are implementations that don't pollute context any more than CLIs, but if one uses only CC, he would never know.

by miroljub

4/10/2026 at 3:45:12 AM

Use both. These do different things.

by nout

4/10/2026 at 3:20:28 AM

I've remained leaning a bit towards MCP until lately. Both have pretty easy ways to call the other (plenty of cli API callers, and tools like mcp-cli for the reverse https://github.com/philschmid/mcp-cli). Skills have really made progressive discovery if cli-tools much better, and MCP design has adapted likewise. I've lightly preferred MCP for formalism, for it feeling more concrete as a thing.

But what really changed my mind is seeing how much more casual scripting the LLMs do these days. They'll build rad unix pipes, or some python or node short scripts. With CLI tools, it all composes: every trick it learns can plug directly into every other capability.

Where-as with MCP, the LLM has to act as the pipe. Tool calls don't compose! It can read something like this tmux skill then just adapt it in all sorts of crazy ways! It can sort of do that with tool calls, but much less so. https://github.com/nickgnd/tmux-mcp

I'd love to see a capnproto capnweb or some such, with third party handoff (apologies Kenton for once again raising 3ph), where a tool call could return a result and we could forward the result to a different LLM, without even waiting for the result to come back. If the LLM could compose tool calls, it would start to have some parity with the composability of the cli+skill. But it doesn't. And as of very recently I've decided that is too strong a selling point to be ignored. I also just like how the cli remains the universe system: if these are so isomorphic as I keep telling myself, what really does the new kid on the block really bring? How much is a new incarnation better if their capabilities are so near? We should keep building cli tools, good cli tools, so that man and machine benefit.

That said I still leave the beads mcp server around. And I turn on the neovim MCP when I want to talk to neovim. Ah well. I should try harder to switch.

by jauntywundrkind

4/10/2026 at 9:03:17 AM

> Skills are great for pure knowledge and teaching an LLM how to use an existing tool. But for giving an LLM actual access to services, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) is the far superior

That's it. For some things you need MCP, for some things you need SKILLs - these things coexist.

by EugeneOZ

4/10/2026 at 3:31:39 AM

skills and mcp help with entirely different things. sure most products add a skill on using their mcp so that model's tool calling works good.

by avinashselvam

4/10/2026 at 7:26:43 AM

MCP versus Skills -> wrong debate. MCP versus CLI -> real debate.

by seyz

4/10/2026 at 8:07:50 AM

> Using a skill often requires loading the entire SKILL.md into the LLM’s context window, rather than just exposing the single tool signature it needs.

Isn't this, like, the exact thing MCP is the worst at? You need to load the entire MCP into the context even if you're not using the MCP's relevant functions. Which is why some people put them on subagents, which is like, equivalent to putting the MCP behind a CLI function, at which point, why not just have the CLI function and selectively load it when yo- OH WAIT, THERE'S A NAME FOR THAT!

by contextbloat

4/10/2026 at 3:07:16 AM

I still prefer apples over oranges

by ai_slop_hater

4/10/2026 at 9:09:33 AM

why not both

by polyterative

4/10/2026 at 4:15:19 AM

> Skills are great for pure knowledge and teaching an LLM how to use an existing tool. But for giving an LLM actual access to services, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) is the far superior, more pragmatic architectural choice.

There's your answer. If you want to use local tools, use Skills. If you want to use services, use MCP. Or, you know, whatever works best for your scenario.

by tpoacher

4/10/2026 at 7:17:00 AM

Yesterday I accidentally stumbled on a place where I could really appreciate MCP's.

I wanted to connect my Claude account to my Notion account. Apparently all you need to do is just submit the notion MCP and log in. That's it! And I was able to interact with my Notion data from my Claude account!

Imagine how hard this would be with skills? It is literally impossible because with skills, you may need to install some local CLI which Claude honestly should not allow.

If not CLI, you need to interact with their API which again can't happen because you can't authenticate easily.

MCP's fill this narrow gap in my opinion - where you don't own the runtime and you want to connect to other tools like plugins.

by simianwords

4/10/2026 at 6:55:32 AM

SKILLS.md or AGENTS are good concepts but they miss two crucial things that will make them much more usable. I predict that this will happen.

Each SKILLS.md will come with two hooks:

1. first for installing the SKILL itself - maybe install the CLI or do some initial work to get it working

2. Each skill may have dependencies on other skills - we need to install those first

Expressing these two hooks in a formal way in skills would help me completely replace MCP's.

My concrete prediction is that this will happen soon.

Wrote more about it here: https://simianwords.bearblog.dev/what-agent-skills-misses-no...

by simianwords

4/10/2026 at 9:43:32 AM

i feel like giving an agent shell access and internet is batshit crazy.

that's just me i guess.

by lukewarm707

4/10/2026 at 3:24:33 AM

I love the idea of MCP, but it needs a progressive disclosure mechanism. A large MCP from a provider with hundreds or even thousands of tools can eat up a huge amount of your context window. Additionally, MCPs come in a bunch of different flavors in terms of transport and auth mechanisms, and not all harnesses support all those options well.

I’ve gone the other way, and used MCP-CLI to define all my MCP servers and wrap them in a CLI command for agent use. This lets me easily use them both locally and in cloud agents, without worrying about the harness support for MCP or how much context window will be eaten up. I have a minimal skill for how to use MCP-CLI, with progressive disclosure in the skill for each of the tools exposed by MCP-CLI. Works great.

All that said, I do think MCP will probably be the standard going forward, it just has too much momentum. Just need to solve progressive disclosure (like skills have!) and standardize some of the auth and transport layer stuff.

by senordevnyc

4/10/2026 at 3:44:29 AM

I thought Claude Code and others do progressive disclosure for MCP now as well.

The article claims so:

> Smart Discovery: Modern apps (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) have tool search built-in. They only look for and load tools when they are actually needed, saving precious context window.

by didibus

4/10/2026 at 2:42:09 AM

This author does not realize that skills can call APIs. The idea that you have to build dedicated CLI apps is not true at all and invalidates the entire article.

by charcircuit

4/10/2026 at 3:17:16 AM

No, the point was that you don’t have access to a CLI in every environment.

by woeirua

4/10/2026 at 5:00:36 AM

You could have access to a web browser or web request tool instead.

by charcircuit

4/10/2026 at 5:04:23 AM

There is no world in which an enterprise is not OK with an agent having access to a CLI but is OK with possibly getting prompt injected from a random web search.

by woeirua

4/10/2026 at 4:13:03 AM

He did. That's what the "you aren’t forcing the user to manage raw tokens and secrets in plain text." bit comes in.

by j16sdiz

4/10/2026 at 3:00:18 AM

Can you clarify what exactly you mean? Skills are markdown files, so they definitely can't call APIs or CLIs. Are you saying that a skill can tell the agent to use curl to call web APIs? Or something different?

by CGamesPlay

4/10/2026 at 3:20:24 AM

Technically they can at least how I'm using or abusing them - I ride windows so they have a generic powershell script bolted on to handle special API use through the skill to make it easier for the agent to call data up noted in the skill. does it lack full API details? absolutely. I have also a learning skill where if it has to go for a think / fail / try to figure something new out to grow a new skill or update an existing one.

skills to me suck when they are shared with a team - haven't found the secret sauce here to keep these organic skills synced between everyone

by hypercube33

4/10/2026 at 3:10:53 AM

https://agentskills.io/specification

* references/ Contains additional documentation that agents can read when needed

* scripts/ Contains executable code that agents can run.

* assets/ Contains static resources

by mhalle

4/10/2026 at 4:21:49 AM

Skills can bundle scripts. Skills can express how to use curl. Skills can integrate with your fips keys if you want them to.

by nostrebored

4/10/2026 at 4:18:36 AM

They almost certainly mean skills can tell the agent to use the api, and it can succeed at doing that.

by latentsea

4/10/2026 at 2:57:22 AM

And call MCPs as well

by leonidasv

4/10/2026 at 3:40:41 AM

auth

by lyime

4/10/2026 at 10:05:23 AM

[dead]

by 0xy4sh

4/10/2026 at 8:15:06 AM

[dead]

by techpulselab

4/10/2026 at 9:22:42 AM

[dead]

by spotlayn

4/10/2026 at 8:04:17 AM

[dead]

by edinetdb

4/10/2026 at 6:25:17 AM

[dead]

by ajaystream

4/10/2026 at 10:55:26 AM

[dead]

by aiedwardyi