It’s suboptimal for the reasons the author outlines: but so is USB-C. So is NVME, so is HDMI.

We use these hugely successful technologies in spite of their flaws because they’re widely compatible and easy for the end user.

That’s why MCP is everywhere. It might not be performant, robust and uniform but it WILL get better over time.

And I’d much rather have the broad MCP ecosystem that we have now than seven or eight different “optimal” ways of plugging in an LLM to something useful.

If you are a Pi user it may be better to just ask your agent to explain https://github.com/earendil-works/pi/pull/10040

There's just something that bothers me about this. Normally if LLMs want to compose multiple operations, they have the perfect tool for this: bash, or whatever other OS shell is available. It's why I was always confused by Codemode-type constructs for direct chaining of tool calls; see also the way highly-RL'd modern models will fall back to sed or python for complex file edits.

It seems like Codemode is raised here as the perfect tool for chaining or composing MCPs, but isn't that backwards? LLMs are already given the perfect tool for that, and the problem is that MCPs aren't exposed to that tool.