I graded 36 popular MCP servers on agent usability. A third got a D or F
tengbyte
31 points
9 comments
July 22, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 148.9ms across 5,804 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Show HN: Only 1 of 4,356 reachable MCP servers is ready for the 2026-07-28 spec roee_tsur · 21 pts · July 12, 2026 · 55% similar
- The State of MCP Security [pdf] mavzer · 26 pts · July 12, 2026 · 51% similar
- 21,000 MCP servers exposed: the protocol reaches a security inflection point Wpnx330 · 11 pts · August 16, 2026 · 51% similar
- Is MCP Good Yet? handfuloflight · 22 pts · September 01, 2026 · 50% similar
- Ask HN: Who is using MCP in production? sukit · 39 pts · September 03, 2026 · 49% similar
Discussion Highlights (7 comments)
codeonline
Somewhat ironically the link to your results table is broken
lolive
JSON and CSV [and a massive amount of custom-made spaghetti code] gave the impression that semantics was totally unnecessary in dataflows. Now that we live in a world where dataflows build themselves, we will need a description language that is much more robust. Probably generated from chatbot interactions, but formally defining how the consumer can discover content and mix them.
brookst
> well-documented big catalogs are possible; they're just rare They’re not that rare, it’s just that flat big catalogs don’t work well. The most common failure mode for MCP server design is mapping MCP tools to system APIs. This results in a tool to list files, a tool to rename a file, a tool to copy a file, etc. You can have 100 “tools”, you just need to define 10-12 areas (actual tools in the MCP model) and actions within each one. It creates a hierarchy that models can dive into when needed and avoid context clutter when that area is not needed. So instead of 15 tools for file operations you have a single “file” tool, with actions like list, copy, rename, etc. Single biggest arch requirement for any MCP server (well, any that has more than a handful of operations).
crefiz
Be warned, AI Slop ahead
d1l
Bro this is just slop.
Hitton
This is stupid analysis. Complaining without nuance about "D004 - parameter has no description" suggests the article was written by an AI agent, because some parameters simply don't need any description. Prime example is "url" parameter explicitly mentioned in the article - unless there are multiple possible url parameters, adding the description just bloats context.
kittikitti
I'm not going to standardize an MCP server. I come from designing REST API's and the leniency of Python. In comparison to other frameworks, MCP is relatively new and there's valid skepticism because of Anthropic's proprietary schemes. It sounds like AI companies are gatekeeping MCP servers, based on definitions they made up, and can just have their goons go around purity testing them.