No, the characterization is very important. You've shown no connection to what's actually at stake, to the engagement patterns here, to the need for people to actually use agents in a way they understand, to the needs to work through & arrive together with your agent at an answer. We cant have a technical discussion until you actually show some engagement in the core topics, but you have been too busy raising frivolous objections to derail anyone thinking about the actual topic and technology.

Your proposal to use APIs is a grossly inefficient waste of LLM's time and energy, and far worse, a misuse of human attention that could be much better directed with the multiplayer/coop/peership of webmcp. You propose inventing brand new communication systems for every interaction, and haven't once considered the merits of leveraging the existing communication medium that users know. Rather than engage in WebMCP & what it brings, it's been trying to hide and confuse the matter & bury any discussion under a sea of objections, objections that don't even carry technical merit. If you want to actually reply to any of the interesting things rather than blocking and obstructing discussion, I'll happily re-engage.

I've found everything you have said to be radically damaging to understanding the problems that be, by vastly limiting consideration away from all interesting topics and raising only naysaying quibbles that don't address how users and agents would actually do work. Users and agents need to work together. That's simple, and your posts actively distract from what's unique and different here. I'm not going to accept another null response and then waste my time again, and it's sad that people have been steered away from thoughtful consideration like this.