[kaycebasques]

If you're sold on MCP, what was your "wow" moment? I've read the docs and tinkered a bit but it was a decidedly "meh" experience personally. It seems very similar to ChatGPT Plugins, and that was a flop. I don't really like the fuzzy nature of the architecture, where I never know what server will be invoked. And I have to manually opt-in to each server I want to use? To be unexpectedly useful, it seems like I would have to opt-in to tens or hundreds of servers. Yet I've heard that clients start to struggle once you have more than 20 servers plugged in...? Please excuse any fundamental errors I've repeated here, if any...

[jaapbadlands]

The first use case I found relevant and useful was the Supabase MCP server, allowing Cursor's agent to query my Supabase project. It meant no longer describing my database to Cursor, it could simply go and get the information it needed, as needed.

[cruffle_duffle]

Wrote an MCP to hook into my logging so I could get Claude + Cursor to quickly answer "hey, why did request 20394 from yesterday evening fuck up?". It goes into the logs and finds the exception, hunts down the line and then tells me whats up. Of course, left unchecked it tries to fix the problem too but I've spent countless lines of prompt engineering to have it never attempt to "just start writing code".

[mwigdahl]

My "wow" moment was when I wrote an internal MCP server so that Claude Code could access our test databases. It was a tiny amount of code, simple to connect up, and immediately gave Claude Code a way to directly validate queries. It's been useful in numerous scenarios since then and got me thinking about additional MCP-based tools it might be nice to have.

[fullstackchris]

For me it was implementing a simple `execute_terminal_command` tool along with hooking up to my company's jira and gitlab (dont worry security gurus, for the command line, I have a hardcoded list of allowed read-only commands that the LLM can execute, and both jira and gitlab servers likewise have readonly options.)

What I will say is I agree there should be an option to get rid of the chat confirmations of every single new tool call in a chat - as well as building a set of "profiles" of different tools depending what I'm working on. Also strongly agree there needs to be an internal prompt possibility to explicitely tell the LLM what tool(s) to favor and how to use them (even in addition to the descriptions / schemas of the tools themselves) I opened an issue on the anthropic repo exactly about this: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/typescript-sdk/issue...

[ChromaticPanic]

Open webui let's you do all that. You set up single model agents and assign specific tools. You can also beef it up with system prompts.

On that note, the various agents libraries will let you create that same setup.

[bluedevil2k]

Writing an internal MCP server to link our API layer to Augment/VSCode so that our Frontend developers can ask in plaintalk about API details. With over 1000 endpoints, it lets the devs find the endpoint, and more importantly the GQL fields, quickly. After some dogfooding we plan to open it up to our clients as well.

[empath75]

We have a software templating tool we use internally to start new projects. I wired an MCP server into it and now I can just ask cursor to start a new project for me, and it'll go through our list of templates, find the most useful one, create a new project, read the documentation for it, and then be ready to building it and adding new features right away.

[grahac]

Yep. It is currently a Meh experience as said in the OP because the UX sucks. The idea is take a step back and imagine what could it become if those are fixed.

Btw, one of my favorite MCPs is a Whois MCP so I can ask Claude Desktop to brainstorm domain names and then immediately check if they are available :).

It’s clunky but I am still using it :)