[broodbucket]

As someone who is obviously not the target audience, I feel like literally anything on this page that could lead me to explain what MCP is would be nice, while we're talking about what the landing page doesn't tell you. Even just one of the MCP mentions being a link to modelcontextprotocol.io would be fine.

Or maybe I'm so out of the loop it's as obvious as "git" is, I dunno.

[fragmede]

It’s fair to be curious, but at some point it’s also reasonable to expect people are capable of using Google to look up unfamiliar terms. I'm not gatekeeping—just, like, put in a bit of effort?

Threads like this work better when they can go deeper without rehashing the basics every time.

[johannes1234321]

Having a Link to the mcp website won't be "rehashing" but how the web once was supposed to be.

[matthewdgreen]

I took a brief look at the MCP documentation today, and left looking confused. At a high level that protocol looks like a massive swiss-army knife that could potentially do everything, and the use-case in TFA looks like it's implementing one very specific tool within that large swiss-army knife. Both need better explanation.

[kiitos]

When someone is trying to communicate some stuff to an audience, it's the responsibility of the orator to ensure the audience understands what they're trying to communicate, it's not the responsibility of the audience to figure out what the orator means thru their own effort or research or whatever.

There's always a baseline expectation of some kind of shared context, sure, and within that kind of context your comment makes total sense. But all of the stuff I'm pointing out is definitely not part of any notion of that kind of shared context. That's my whole point!

If you give a lecture to 100 people, and 5 people leave that lecture confused, that's their problem. But if 95 people leave that lecture confused, that's your problem.