[the_mitsuhiko]

I don't find that to help much at all, particularly because some tools really only make sense with a bunch of other tools and then your context is already polluted. It's surprisingly hard to do this right, unless you have a single tool MCP (eg: a code/eval based tool, or an inference based tool).

[stavros]

Don't you have a post about writing Python instead of using MCP? I can't see how MCP is more efficient than giving the LLM a bunch of function signatures and allow it to call them, but maybe I'm not familiar enough with MCP.

[the_mitsuhiko]

> Don't you have a post about writing Python instead of using MCP?

Yes, and that works really well. I also tried various attempts of letting agents to write code that exposes MCP tool calls via an in-language API. But it's just really, really hard to work with because MCP tools are generally not in the training set, but normal APIs are.

[stavros]

Yeah, I've always thought that your proposal was much better. I don't know why one of the big companies hasn't released something that standardised on tool-calling via code, hm.