Huh? I get a blood panel every year and 90% of the things it looks for are normal year after year. But there is always 1 or 2 things flagged that I need to pay attention to.
An ECG if it was just part of the normal yearly panel of things that get looked at I don't think ppl will stop doing it just because it doesn't find something right away
Nobody said anything is worse. Half this thread is satire. But on a serious note. ECG is really time prohibitive, drawing 3ml of blood is relatively quick, and doesn't require specialist training like an ECG does.
The user experience for a rest api and for mcp can be the same. For MCP, you have to give the mcp server url. For REST, you could provide a url to the openapi spec. The open API spec has everything you'd need - oauth url + all the endpoints and params.
Most chat products will just have a directory of connectors anyways - so for non technical folks they won't even here the term MCP or REST, they'll just "Install the Gmail plugin".
Yep. There's already a well-established system of `.well-known` URL paths to support things like API spec discover, auth discovery, etc. Why re-invent those wheels?
Because while an agent can indeed call a REST API directly using some other tool ( probably curl) what LLMs are good at is calling tools, and all MCP is doing is turning an API into a tool and standardizing authorization, which if you go the API route can be a nightmare as auth is not even mentioned in OpenAPI specs, usually, so the agent has to figure out how to do auth, and it will necessarily have access to your token and maybe even credentials, so it can easily leak it to attackers your agent happens to visit by just asking for it. I can’t believe anyone who has tried to give agents access to APIs in a sane manner hasn’t concluded that something on the lines of MCP is absolutely necessary.
I guarantee you any LLM will be perfectly capable of navigating HTTP auth [1] which has been around since 1999.
You could use `curl`, or you could bake an HTTP client tool into the agent harness which operates at a more abstract level. The agent would just have a tool that looks a lot like the Fetch API [2] and the harness could simply be configured to inject credentials using the various well-established patterns that have long existed, allow / deny certain methods, etc. The thing is, everything you can do with MCP could also simply be done with REST, so neither is inherently better than the other, I just don't like the proliferation of needless standards.
You can’t be seriously proposing HTTP auth (you probably mean basic auth??) as a solution!? Just hand your raw credentials to the LLM, what could go wrong?
Letting the harness inject the credentials implies not exposing them to the LLM.
Besides, the current state of MCP authentication almost always involves just hard coding secrets in .claude/settings.json so it's not like that's doing a great job keeping the creds away from the LLM anyway. All I'm saying is that MCP auth offers no advantage.
OpenAPI 3.0 has auth. You can turn OpenAPI specs into tool calls just as well, without giving your agents access to call curl and without leaking credentials.
The problem is often that OpenAPI schemas are often incomplete, since they used to be useful to humans even in an incomplete state.
MCP basically requires you to do the equivalent work of getting your OpenAPI schema complete. It’s just much easier to sell to your managers.
I tried to research this limit. Here is what I found about San Francisco:
> Waymo is not subject to a regulatory cap or hard limit on the number of cars it can operate in San Francisco.
To be clear, the regulator in question here is California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which is a state-level regulator. Apparently, SF local officials would like to limit the number of vehicles but it not allowed by division of powers.
Just scale your small bus further down and you get a cybercab/waymo. It gets full easily but its routes are fully customizable and you never have to change lines and it runs at all hours with no wait. Ohh and its actually way cheaper to run per passenger mile. IMO shared, electric, autonomous AVs are the best solution for mass transit for 90% of the routes
Lots of single user "busses" cause dramatically lower road wear and microplastics than a many user bus. Those scale with axle weight to the third and fourth powers respectively.
