It’s talking about passing Python code in that would have a Python interpreter tool.
Even if you had guardrails setup that seems a little chancery, but hey this is the time of development evolution where we’re letting AI write code anyway, so why not give other people remote code execution access, because fuck it all.
I wrote about how to do it with Guix: https://200ok.ch/posts/2025-05-23_sandboxing_ai_tools:_how_g...
Since then, I have switched to using Bubblewrap: https://github.com/munen/dotfiles/blob/master/bin/bin/bubble...
Would be nice if there was a way for agents to work with MCPs as code, preview or debug the data flowing through them. At the moment it all seems not a mature enough solution and Id rather mount a Python sandbox with API keys to what it needs than connect an MCP tool on my own machine.
Started on working on an alternative protocol, which lets agents call native endpoints directly (HTTP/CLI/WebSocket) via “manuals” and “providers,” instead of spinning up a bespoke wrapper server: https://github.com/universal-tool-calling-protocol/python-ut...
even connects to MCP servers
if you take a look, would love your thoughts
Fails and i've no idea why, meanwhile python code works without issues but i can't use that one as it conflicts with existing dependencies in aider, see: https://pastebin.com/TNpMRsb9 (working code after 5 failed attempts)
I am never gonna bother with this again, it can be built as a simple rest API, why we even need this ugly protocol?
https://github.com/CharlieDigital/runjs
Let's the LLM safely generate and execute whatever code it needs.
It has a built in secrets manager API, HTTP fetch analogue, JSONPath for JSON handling, and Polly for HTTP request resiliency.
In my experience, it’s actually quite the opposite.
By giving an LLM a set of tools, 30 in the Playwright case from the article, you’re essentially restricting what it can do.
In this sense, MCP is more of a guardrail/sandbox for an LLM, rather than a superpower (you must choose one of these Stripe commands!).
This is good for some cases, where you want your “agent”[1] to have exactly some subset of tools, similar to a line worker or specialist.
However it’s not so great when you’re using the LLM as a companion/pair programmer for some task, where you want its output to be truly unbounded.
[0]https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/getting-started/intro
[1]For these cases you probably shouldn’t use MCP, but instead define tools explicitly within one context.
yxhuvud•51m ago
diggan•47m ago
There is a link to a previous post by the same author (within the first ten words even!), which contains the context you're looking for.
yxhuvud•43m ago
dkdcio•19m ago
reactordev•47m ago
It’s pretty well known by now what MCP stands for, unless you were referring to something else…
klez•43m ago
reactordev•40m ago
grim_io•4m ago
The first case doesn't matter at all if you already know what an MCP actually is.
At least for the task of understanding the article.
koakuma-chan•18m ago
Minecraft Coder Pack
tronreference•9m ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atmQjQjoZCQ
jeroenhd•33m ago
I have no idea what any of the abbreviations in stock market news mean and those stock market people won't know their CLIs from their APIs and LLMs, but that doesn't mean the articles are bad.
jahsome•22m ago