3 ms·

mine just is the gh cli. is the advantage of graphql that they can compose a query that would take multiple cli invocations?

mattkrick 17d ago
CLI still has the possibility of being a little more token efficient, at worst it may use graphql behind the scenes. For our company, we advertise the graphql schema to bots and they can one-shot whatever task they're trying to do. I've found that it's so good that I cancelled building an an MCP server and any skill. Just a well documented GQL schema. It's pretty remarkable.
- saasrivals 17d ago
  [flagged]
- enormousness 17d ago
  I think you might also have a GQL schema that's particularly well suited to what those bots need. Either that or your backend schema is relatively simple and the GQL schema covers all its possible data compositions.
- agentdev001 17d ago
  > "I've found that it's so good that I cancelled building an an MCP server and any skill. Just a well documented GQL schema. It's pretty remarkable." This gave me a chuckle, there's some subtle irony here- especially if the documentation of the GQL schema was work that needed to be done!
  - mattkrick 17d ago
    That's completely fair, I did spend a day or 2 having AI rewrite the field descriptions based on the code. for bots, by bots!
- shrx 17d ago
  Can you provide an example of this schema?
  - mattkrick 17d ago
    https://action.parabol.co/graphql/schema.graphql https://action.parabol.co/graphql/schema.graphql
sockbot 17d ago
no the advantage of graphql is that the caller can limit the response to only the information that they need. in a REST API the caller has to filter out the extraneous information. using LLMs to do the filtering uses up context window
- CharlieDigital 17d ago
  This is not fully true. Most agents will use curl | jq to slice what they need (assuming a known API)
  - agentdev001 17d ago
    Yea- its just a matter of whether the work is delegated to the client or offered by the server. Making sure what is served is in a really quality schema is generally the most efficient path- ime

mattkrick 17d ago

CLI still has the possibility of being a little more token efficient, at worst it may use graphql behind the scenes. For our company, we advertise the graphql schema to bots and they can one-shot whatever task they're trying to do. I've found that it's so good that I cancelled building an an MCP server and any skill. Just a well documented GQL schema. It's pretty remarkable.

saasrivals 17d ago
[flagged]
enormousness 17d ago
I think you might also have a GQL schema that's particularly well suited to what those bots need. Either that or your backend schema is relatively simple and the GQL schema covers all its possible data compositions.
agentdev001 17d ago
> "I've found that it's so good that I cancelled building an an MCP server and any skill. Just a well documented GQL schema. It's pretty remarkable." This gave me a chuckle, there's some subtle irony here- especially if the documentation of the GQL schema was work that needed to be done!
- mattkrick 17d ago
  That's completely fair, I did spend a day or 2 having AI rewrite the field descriptions based on the code. for bots, by bots!
shrx 17d ago
Can you provide an example of this schema?
- mattkrick 17d ago
  https://action.parabol.co/graphql/schema.graphql https://action.parabol.co/graphql/schema.graphql

sockbot 17d ago

no the advantage of graphql is that the caller can limit the response to only the information that they need. in a REST API the caller has to filter out the extraneous information. using LLMs to do the filtering uses up context window

CharlieDigital 17d ago
This is not fully true. Most agents will use curl | jq to slice what they need (assuming a known API)
- agentdev001 17d ago
  Yea- its just a matter of whether the work is delegated to the client or offered by the server. Making sure what is served is in a really quality schema is generally the most efficient path- ime