When does MCP make sense vs CLI?

This is spot on

This is the dumbest most myopic take I’ve seen in awhile. MCP servers aren’t just used for geeks using Claude Code. If I have an app in production that uses an MCP server what is he suggesting? That my LLM create a shell script and run it inside of a Docker container?

I don't know about this. I use AI, but I've never used or tried MCP. I've never had any problems with the current tools.

MCPs were dead in the water and were completely a bad standard to begin with. The hype around never made sense.

Not only it had lots of issues and security problems all over the place and it was designed to be complicated.

For example, Why does your password manager need an MCP server? [0]

But it still does not mean a CLI is any better for everything.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44528411

what honestly is the difference between an mcp and a skill + instructions + curl.

Really it seems to me the difference is that an mcp could be more token-efficient, but it isn't, because you dump every mcp's instructions all the time into your context.

Of course then again skills frequently doesn't get triggered.

just seems like coding agent bugs/choices and protocol design?

*when does an LLM make sense vs writing your own code.

Dang, I fixed the title for you.

I wonder if what we'll get out of MCP tech in the end is a standardised machine readable description of CLI interfaces? Could be neat actually.

This got renamed right in front of my eyes

Been ignoring this junk for a long but I had to look since the front page is littered with "MCP". Is acronym on purpose?

First they came for our RAGs, now for our MCPs. What’s next ?

Lol people are so lost in the bs

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

The CLI vs MCP debate is about input ergonomics — how the agent invokes tools. Both sides are arguing about the left side of the pipeline.

The harder unsolved problem is the right side: what happens to the output before it becomes consequential action. Neither a CLI nor an MCP server tells you whether the text the agent just generated is compliant, scoped, or admissible. That enforcement problem exists regardless of which invocation pattern you prefer.

The best CLI in the world doesn't help you when the agent produces a clinical summary that omits a contraindication or a financial disclosure that drifts outside regulatory bounds. That's a different layer entirely — and it's mostly being ignored while everyone argues about transport protocols.

[dead]

I remember this kind of people against Kubernetes the same exact way. Very funny.

Hi friends! Author here. This blew up a bit, so some words.

The article title and content is intentionally provocative. It’s just to get people thinking. My real views are probably a lot more balanced. I totally get there’s a space where MCP probably does actually make sense. Particularly in areas where CLI invocation would be challenging. I think we probably could have come up with something better than MCP to fill that space, but it’s still better than nothing.

Really all I want folks to take away from this is to think “hmm, maybe a CLI would actually be better for this particular use case”. If I were to point a finger at anything in particular, it would be Datadog and Slack who have chosen to build MCP’s instead of official CLI’s that agents can use. A CLI would be infinitely better (for me).