3 ms·
I am so tired of people repeating this. Usually, this results from conflating two uses of MCP: local, which can indeed be replaced by CLI (and you can argue whi
by jwr 3mo ago
I am so tired of people repeating this. Usually, this results from conflating two uses of MCP: local, which can indeed be replaced by CLI (and you can argue which one is better), and remote, which is entirely different, and there is no way to replace it with a CLI (note that you are making an implicit assumption that a CLI tool can be used at all, which is not always the case).
Please don't repeat this. It's like saying that apples are dead and oranges are the future.
- rixed 3mo agoExplain again why a cli can't access a remote service ? The only difference that is not superficial is the token count. Everything else : format, doc, auth, discoverability, ... can be made the same (the cli could be an mcp client, and the mcp server could implement a local shell, after all)