9 ms·

MCP is great for the stateful systems, where shared context is a benefit, but this is a rarity. Developers generally write clients to use APIs in a stateless wa

by yompal 2y ago

MCP is great for the stateful systems, where shared context is a benefit, but this is a rarity. Developers generally write clients to use APIs in a stateless way, and we want to help this majority of users. That said, agents.json is not mutually exclusive to MCP. I can see a future where an MCP for agents.json is created to access any API.

winkle 2y ago
I think MCP being stateful is true in the short term. It's currently at the top of their roadmap to add to the protocol https://modelcontextprotocol.io/development/roadmap https://modelcontextprotocol.io/development/roadmap.
- yompal 2y ago
  We've been keeping a close eye on this topic: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/specification/discussions/102 https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/specification/discus... The options being considered to do this are: 1) maintain a session token mapping to the state -- which is still statefulness 2) create a separate stateless MCP protocol and reimplement -- agents.json is already the stateless protocol 3) reimplement every MCP as stateless and abandon the existing stateful MCP initiative As you can tell, we're not bullish on any of these.
esafak 2y ago
Isn't the idea to create a data lake to better inform models? Why are you bearish on stateful protocols? Could you elaborate on your thinking?
- yompal 2y ago
  Bearish on everyone needing to be on stateful protocols. Developers should have the option to have their state managed internal to their application.
  - esafak 2y ago
    Can't you simply use a stateful protocol and not report any state? Doesn't statefulness subsume statelessness? I am beginning to wrap my head around this space, so excuse the naive questions.
    - yompal 2y ago
      No worries! In other cases, I believe you would be right. But splitting up context is not optional with MCP. Part of the whole state will always reside in an external entity.

by yompal 2y ago

winkle 2y ago

I think MCP being stateful is true in the short term. It's currently at the top of their roadmap to add to the protocol https://modelcontextprotocol.io/development/roadmap https://modelcontextprotocol.io/development/roadmap.

yompal 2y ago
We've been keeping a close eye on this topic: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/specification/discussions/102 https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/specification/discus... The options being considered to do this are: 1) maintain a session token mapping to the state -- which is still statefulness 2) create a separate stateless MCP protocol and reimplement -- agents.json is already the stateless protocol 3) reimplement every MCP as stateless and abandon the existing stateful MCP initiative As you can tell, we're not bullish on any of these.

esafak 2y ago

Isn't the idea to create a data lake to better inform models? Why are you bearish on stateful protocols? Could you elaborate on your thinking?

yompal 2y ago
Bearish on everyone needing to be on stateful protocols. Developers should have the option to have their state managed internal to their application.
- esafak 2y ago
  Can't you simply use a stateful protocol and not report any state? Doesn't statefulness subsume statelessness? I am beginning to wrap my head around this space, so excuse the naive questions.
  - yompal 2y ago
    No worries! In other cases, I believe you would be right. But splitting up context is not optional with MCP. Part of the whole state will always reside in an external entity.