4 ms·

> there's almost no reason to use MCPs if you are running a full-blown terminal agent I disagree. Adding "https://mcp.linear.app/mcp https://mcp.linear.app/mcp

• shibel 12d ago
  Funny you mention Linear’s specifically, I just posted about moving to a CLI instead because of the MCP’s egregious token-usage [1]. While this doesn’t discount the points you mentioned, I think the context savings (which can be huge, I hadn’t listed all differences in that post) outweigh them specifically in Linear’s case. It is just too inefficient in that regard. Edit: this of course says nothing about MCP vs API/CLI in general. It’s just a bad implementation by Linear. 1: https://thebiglog.com/links/linear-cli-instead-of-linear-mcp https://thebiglog.com/links/linear-cli-instead-of-linear-mcp
  • w0m 12d ago
    This surprises me a bit. I've found much better token usage with a proper/efficient MCP as even with a deep /skill defining usage, parsing MCP results is generally just better/more efficient than parsing CLI results. I say this having written a CLI tool explicitly for harness usage, and leveraging MCPs for the same. I'm sure there are bad MCPs and great CLI tools that parse poorly/well via harness, but I'd be curious on an better research study.
    • shibel 12d ago
      Your comment doesn’t contradict mine and mine doesn’t contradict yours. Linear’s MCP is just (very?) inefficient. I explain the source of the difference in the last two paragraphs.
    • estetlinus 12d ago
      How much are using Linear if token usage is a problem? Sounds like a case of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.