3 ms·
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
by shibel 7d 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 7d agoThis 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 7d agoYour 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 7d agoHow much are using Linear if token usage is a problem? Sounds like a case of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.