Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

Show Gist options
  • Save eonist/ec14258f1e4dd87fc6bcc4aa9d5c2204 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save eonist/ec14258f1e4dd87fc6bcc4aa9d5c2204 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Evaluating the Future of MCP: Do These Concerns Have Merit?

Evaluating the Future of MCP: Do These Concerns Have Merit?

Your concerns about MCP's potential decline are well-founded and reflect real challenges the protocol faces. Let me analyze each point based on current industry trends and adoption patterns.

1. RAG Prioritization for Internal Knowledge Bases

This concern has significant merit. The relationship between RAG and MCP is more complex than simple replacement, and enterprise preferences are already showing interesting patterns.

Current Enterprise Preferences

Many organizations are indeed prioritizing RAG for internal knowledge management[1]. RAG excels at handling unstructured, text-heavy content like documentation, policies, and institutional knowledge[2]. For enterprises with extensive document repositories, RAG provides:

  • Comprehensive context from historical documents and knowledge bases[1]
  • Sub-second response times for complex queries spanning multiple information sources[1]
  • Advanced document intelligence that extracts structured insights from unstructured content[1]

The Hybrid Reality

However, the most effective enterprise implementations are adopting hybrid architectures that combine both approaches[1]. RAG handles strategic, document-heavy queries while MCP provides real-time access to operational data[1]. This suggests that rather than MCP being replaced, it may be relegated to specific use cases rather than becoming the universal solution many predicted.

2. LLMs Trained on API Specs

This concern is particularly valid and represents a significant threat to MCP's value proposition.

Current Limitations of API Specs

Today's API specifications often fall short for AI integration[3]. Developers report that existing OpenAPI specs are "insufficient as a basis for tool calling" due to:

  • Largely insufficient documentation on endpoints themselves[3]
  • Missing context on what actions are triggered by different HTTP methods[3]
  • Underdocumented authentication mechanisms[3]
  • Broken or incorrect base URLs[3]

The Training Solution

If LLMs become proficient at interpreting and working with API specifications directly, this could eliminate MCP's primary advantage. The protocol's main selling point is providing "a badge that says 'we had AI usage in mind when building this'"[3]. If LLMs can effectively work with standard APIs without this specialized layer, MCP's value diminishes significantly.

3. Developer Aversion Due to Code Complexity

This is perhaps the most immediate and practical concern. Developer sentiment around MCP complexity is already emerging as a significant barrier.

Complexity Concerns

Multiple sources highlight the substantial development overhead:

  • MCP implementations can require "1000s of lines of code" for proper tooling[4]
  • Developers face "double the effort" when managing multiple plugin systems[4]
  • The protocol creates "hard dependencies between AI apps and tools"[5]

Security and Maintenance Burden

The complexity extends beyond initial development:

  • No built-in security mechanisms in current MCP specifications[4]
  • Hidden cost implications as every registered function adds token load[4]
  • Debugging and tooling immaturity compared to established HTTP APIs[6]

Developer Feedback

Industry feedback suggests growing frustration: "many MCP servers already provide far more than twenty functions right from the start"[4], leading to exponentially increasing costs and complexity that users often don't understand.

Market Reality Check

Despite these concerns, MCP has shown remarkable early adoption:

  • Over 1,000 MCP servers created by February 2025[7]
  • Major platform adoption including Microsoft's Windows 11 integration[7]
  • Enterprise backing from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Microsoft[7]

However, this early momentum doesn't guarantee long-term success if the fundamental concerns you've identified materialize.

Conclusion: Valid Concerns with Nuanced Outcomes

Your concerns have substantial merit, but the outcome may be more nuanced than complete MCP abandonment:

  1. RAG prioritization is already happening for knowledge-heavy use cases, but hybrid approaches are emerging
  2. LLM training on API specs could indeed reduce MCP's value proposition significantly
  3. Developer complexity aversion is a real and growing concern that could limit adoption

If two or more of these factors align, MCP usage could indeed plummet in specific segments. However, MCP may survive in specialized niches where its benefits outweigh the complexity costs, particularly for real-time operational data access where RAG is less suitable[1].

The protocol's future likely depends on addressing the complexity concerns while finding sustainable differentiation from both RAG and direct API integration approaches.

[1] https://www.webuild-ai.com/insights/will-mcp-make-rag-obsolete [2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rag-vs-mcp-guide-native-ai-apps-vishvambhar-dayal-tht7c [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44314289 [4] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/danger-mcp-what-every-developer-needs-know-gregor-biswanger-nm9se [5] https://dev.to/viktorardelean/mcp-the-rest-revolution-of-ai-why-this-protocol-changes-everything-4p75 [6] https://duske.me/posts/mcp/ [7] https://rickxie.cn/blog/MCP/ [8] https://dev.to/tak089/what-is-model-context-protocol-mcp-and-why-is-it-trending-in-2025-14lc [9] https://www.ainewshub.org/post/top-10-model-context-protocols-mcp-transforming-ai-in-2025 [10] https://www.sarmedrizvi.com/blog/10-MCP-Servers-you-can-use-in-2025 [11] https://apidog.com/blog/top-10-mcp-servers/ [12] https://becomingahacker.org/integrating-agentic-rag-with-mcp-servers-technical-implementation-guide-1aba8fd4e442 [13] https://www.getambassador.io/blog/mcp-server-explained [14] https://axify.io/blog/code-complexity-explained [15] https://www.arsturn.com/blog/examining-the-future-of-mcp-servers-in-the-ai-landscape-trends-predictions [16] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rag-vs-mcp-beyond-hype-choosing-right-ai-power-up-you-justin-parnell-ksuqc [17] https://a16z.com/a-deep-dive-into-mcp-and-the-future-of-ai-tooling/ [18] https://destinovaailabs.com/blog/top-10-model-context-protocol-mcp-servers-for-2025-powering-ai-driven-development/ [19] https://block.github.io/goose/blog/2025/04/22/mcp-is-rewriting-the-rules-of-api-integration/ [20] https://den.dev/blog/mcp-prm-auth/ [21] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yarivlevski_mcp-probably-the-most-important-trend-of-activity-7315423257455685632-Il1d [22] https://www.gettingstarted.ai/mcp-vs-rag-vs-api/ [23] https://nordicapis.com/how-model-context-protocol-mcp-impacts-apis/ [24] https://www.getzep.com/ai-agents/developer-guide-to-mcp [25] https://www.pomerium.com/blog/june-2025-mcp-content-round-up [26] https://dev.to/pranta/why-being-a-software-developer-sucks-in-2025-46ia [27] https://generect.com/blog/what-is-mcp/ [28] https://www.k2view.com/what-is-model-context-protocol/ [29] https://blog.logto.io/mcp-auth-spec-review-2025-03-26 [30] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/llms-also-need-helpmcp-provides-standard-way-request-walid-negm-whpoc [31] https://dev.to/fallon_jimmy/top-10-mcp-servers-for-2025-yes-githubs-included-15jg [32] https://theintellify.com/mcp-vs-rag-ideal-ai-model/ [33] https://www.getambassador.io/blog/model-context-protocol-mcp-connecting-llms-to-apis [34] https://block.github.io/goose/blog/2025/04/22/mcp-is-rewriting-the-rules-of-api-integration [35] https://devcontentops.io/post/2025/06/mcp-vs-rag-for-ai-applications [36] https://www.dandoescode.com/blog/mcp-easily-extend-llms-with-existing-apis [37] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43302297 [38] https://ragwalla.com/blog/mcp-enterprise-adoption-report-2025-challenges-best-practices-roi-analysis

@eonist
Copy link
Author

eonist commented Jul 6, 2025

pplx prompt: regarding validating if mcp is the future or not (do these worries have merit?): 3 points i think mcp usage might plummet if at least 2 of these happen :

@eonist
Copy link
Author

eonist commented Jul 6, 2025

follow up questions:

Do I need to worry about MCP declining if RAG prioritizes internal knowledge storage
How might training LLMs on API specs reduce the need for MCP integrations
Could developer aversion grow due to the complexity of tooling with MCP
Will increased use of RAG diminish the reliance on MCP for knowledge management
Are these concerns valid given MCP's rapid industry adoption and ecosystem growth

@eonist
Copy link
Author

eonist commented Jul 6, 2025

Can you argue the other side of the coin. why these worries should not be worries? try to debunk them?

@eonist
Copy link
Author

eonist commented Jul 6, 2025

Debunking the MCP Concerns: Why These Worries Are Overblown

While your concerns about MCP's future have some surface validity, a deeper analysis reveals why these worries may be misplaced. Let me argue the counterpoint to each concern and explain why MCP's fundamentals remain strong.

1. RAG vs MCP: Complementary, Not Competitive

The "RAG will replace MCP" concern fundamentally misunderstands what each technology does.

Different Problem Domains

RAG and MCP solve entirely different problems and are increasingly used together rather than as alternatives[1]. RAG excels at information retrieval from static knowledge bases, while MCP provides dynamic, real-time access to tools and structured data[2]. This isn't a zero-sum competition—it's complementary specialization.

MCP's Unique Value Proposition

MCP offers capabilities that RAG simply cannot match:

  • Dynamic discovery: MCP clients can ask servers "what can you do?" and adapt to available capabilities automatically[3]
  • Structured context management: Unlike RAG's text-heavy approach, MCP provides typed, structured context that models understand better[4]
  • Tool integration: MCP natively supports tool invocation as part of the protocol, not as an afterthought[5]

Enterprise Reality Check

The enterprise preference for RAG in knowledge management doesn't threaten MCP's core use cases. MCP enhances RAG workflows by standardizing how external data is structured and integrated[6]. Organizations are adopting hybrid architectures where RAG handles document retrieval while MCP manages real-time operational data access[7].

2. LLM Training on API Specs: A False Equivalence

The assumption that better API spec training eliminates MCP's value misses the protocol's fundamental advantages.

Beyond Documentation: Dynamic Capabilities

Even if LLMs become perfect at interpreting API specifications, they still face critical limitations that MCP solves:

  • Runtime discovery: APIs don't expose dynamic capability discovery mechanisms[3]
  • Standardized integration: MCP provides consistent patterns for context provisioning and tool invocation[5]
  • AI-optimized interfaces: MCP is designed specifically for LLM consumption, not human developers[8]

The Documentation Problem Persists

Current API specifications remain "insufficient as a basis for tool calling" due to missing context, broken documentation, and underdocumented authentication[8]. Training LLMs on better specs doesn't solve the fundamental problem that APIs weren't designed for AI consumption.

MCP's AI-First Design

MCP addresses AI-specific needs that traditional APIs ignore:

  • Context optimization for limited context windows[1]
  • Structured information using schemas models understand better[1]
  • Security considerations built for AI agent interactions[9]

3. Developer Complexity: Overstated and Improving

The "thousands of lines of code" concern reflects early adoption challenges, not fundamental protocol limitations.

Rapid Ecosystem Maturation

The developer experience has dramatically improved since MCP's introduction[10]. Recent updates include:

  • Improved SDKs and development tools
  • Better authentication mechanisms
  • Enhanced remote server support
  • Simplified integration patterns

The Standardization Advantage

While initial MCP implementation may require effort, it provides massive long-term benefits:

  • Universal compatibility: Write once, work everywhere—no need for separate Cursor extensions, VS Code plugins, and Claude Desktop add-ons[10]
  • Reduced integration overhead: Teams no longer spend weeks integrating each new tool[10]
  • Central discovery: Developers can find and publish tools through standardized registries[10]

Developer Adoption Reality

The complexity concern is contradicted by explosive adoption metrics:

  • Over 1,000 MCP servers created by early 2025
  • Major platform integration across IDEs and AI tools[11]
  • Active developer community contributing to the ecosystem[12]

Security and Maintenance Benefits

Rather than creating burdens, MCP actually reduces security complexity by:

  • Providing standardized authentication patterns[10]
  • Enabling centralized security management[10]
  • Reducing the need for custom security implementations per tool

The Bigger Picture: Why MCP Thrives

Network Effects Are Accelerating

MCP benefits from powerful network effects that make it increasingly valuable:

  • More servers → more value for clients
  • More clients → more incentive to build servers
  • Standardization → reduced development costs for everyone

Industry Momentum Is Real

The protocol has achieved unprecedented early adoption:

  • Major AI companies (Anthropic, OpenAI, Microsoft) backing the standard[13]
  • IDE integration across Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code, and others[11]
  • Enterprise adoption for AI agent workflows[14]

Future-Proofing AI Development

MCP addresses fundamental challenges in AI development that won't disappear:

  • Tool proliferation: As AI capabilities expand, standardized tool integration becomes more valuable, not less
  • Security requirements: Enterprise AI deployments need standardized security patterns
  • Interoperability: The AI ecosystem benefits from universal standards

Conclusion: The Concerns Miss the Mark

Your three concerns, while understandable, fundamentally misread MCP's position in the AI ecosystem:

  1. RAG and MCP are complementary, not competitive—they solve different problems and work better together
  2. API spec training doesn't eliminate MCP's value—the protocol provides AI-specific capabilities that traditional APIs lack
  3. Developer complexity is rapidly decreasing while the benefits of standardization are compounding

Rather than facing decline, MCP is positioned to become the "USB-C port of AI applications"[15]—a universal standard that enables seamless integration across the expanding AI ecosystem. The early adoption challenges you've identified are typical of any new protocol, but the underlying value proposition remains compelling and the momentum continues to build.

The real question isn't whether MCP will survive these challenges, but how quickly it will become the dominant standard for AI-tool integration.

[1] https://dev.to/aws/how-rag-mcp-solve-model-limitations-differently-pjm
[2] https://www.merge.dev/blog/rag-vs-mcp
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j1t3UZA1TY
[4] https://devcontentops.io/post/2025/06/mcp-vs-rag-for-ai-applications
[5] https://agnt.one/blog/the-model-context-protocol-for-ai-agents
[6] https://milvus.io/ai-quick-reference/how-does-model-context-protocol-mcp-fit-into-retrievalaugmented-generation-rag-workflows
[7] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rag-vs-mcp-beyond-hype-choosing-right-ai-power-up-you-justin-parnell-ksuqc
[8] https://www.stainless.com/mcp/mcp-api-documentation-the-complete-guide
[9] https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1h7nit6/is_mcp_going_to_replace_rag_or_will_they/
[10] https://newsletter.victordibia.com/p/mcp-for-software-engineers-part-1
[11] https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/mcp
[12] https://dev.to/pavanbelagatti/model-context-protocol-mcp-8-mcp-servers-every-developer-should-try-5hm2
[13] https://www.anthropic.com/news/model-context-protocol
[14] https://neo4j.com/blog/developer/model-context-protocol/
[15] https://modelcontextprotocol.io/introduction
[16] https://www.merge.dev/blog/api-vs-mcp
[17] https://mishrilalsahu.in.net/Blogs/mcp-vs-rag-choosing-the-right-approach-for-your-llm-in-2025
[18] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43302297
[19] https://www.reddit.com/r/AI_Agents/comments/1kaz5tt/mcp_vs_openapi_spec/
[20] https://www.getambassador.io/blog/model-context-protocol-mcp-connecting-llms-to-apis

@eonist
Copy link
Author

eonist commented Jul 6, 2025

follow up questions:

Why these worries about MCP and RAG might be overblown or unnecessary
How MCP's complexity could actually enhance AI reliability rather than hinder it
Why RAG's focus on retrieval doesn't make MCP redundant for complex tasks
How industry adoption of MCP indicates confidence, not fear, in its capabilities
In what ways combining MCP and RAG can create a more robust AI system

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment