I still prefer MCP over skills

robotobos

Despite thinking this is AI-generated, I agree but everything has a caveat. Skills are good for instilling non-repeatable, yet intuitive or institutional knowledge. MCP’s are great for custom, repeatable tasks. After 5-10 runs of watching my LLM write the same exact script, I just asked it to hardcode the solution and make it a tool. The result is runs are way faster and repeatable.

charcircuit

This author does not realize that skills can call APIs. The idea that you have to build dedicated CLI apps is not true at all and invalidates the entire article.

ghm2199

For indie developers like myself, I often use chat GPT desktop and Claude desktop for arbitrary tasks, though my main workhorse is a customized coding harness with CC daemons on my nas. With the apps, b I missed having access to my Nas server where my dev environment is. So I wrote a file system MCP and hosted it with a reverse proxy on my Truenas with auth0. I wanted access to it from all platforms CharGPT mobile, desktop. Same for CC. For chatgpt desktop and Claude desktop my experience with MCPs connected to my home NAS is pretty poor. It(as in the app) often times out fetching data(even though there is no latency for serving the request in the logs), often the existing connection gets invalidated between 2 chat turns and chat gpt just moves on answering without the file in hand. I am not using it for writing code, its mostly read only access to Fs. Has anyone surmounted these problems for this access patterns and written about how to build mcps to be reliable?

alierfan

This isn't a zero-sum game or a choice of one over the other. They solve different layers of the developer experience: MCP provides a standardized, portable interface for external data/tools (the infrastructure), while Skills offer project-specific, high-level behavioral context (the orchestration). A robust workflow uses MCP to ensure tool reliability and Skills to define when and how to deploy those tools.

leonidasv

This is the same as saying "I still prefer hammer over screwdriver".

plandis

I could not agree any less with the author. I don’t want APIs, I want agents to use the same CLI tooling I already use that is locally available. If my agents are using CLI tooling anyways there is no need to add an extra layer via MCP. I don’t want remote MCP calls, I don’t even want remote models but that’s cost prohibitive. If I need to call an API, a skill with existing CLI tooling is more than capable.

ai_slop_hater

I still prefer apples over oranges

grensley

The "only skills" people are usually non-technical and the "only CLI" people are often solo builders. MCP makes a lot of sense for enterprise IMO. Defines auth and interfaces in a way that's a natural extension of APIs.

woeirua

Anthropic says that Skills and MCPs are complementary, and frankly the pure Skills zealots tend to miss that in enterprise environments you’ll have chatbots or the like that don’t have access to a full CLI. It doesn’t matter if your skills tell the agent exactly what to do if they can’t execute the commands. Also, MCP is better for restricted environments because you know exactly what it can or cannot do. That’s why MCP will exist for some time still. They solve distinct problem sets.

jauntywundrkind

I've remained leaning a bit towards MCP until lately. Both have pretty easy ways to call the other (plenty of cli API callers, and tools like mcp-cli for the reverse https://github.com/philschmid/mcp-cli ). Skills have really made progressive discovery if cli-tools much better, and MCP design has adapted likewise. I've lightly preferred MCP for formalism, for it feeling more concrete as a thing. But what really changed my mind is seeing how much more casual scripting the LLMs do these days. They'll build rad unix pipes, or some python or node short scripts. With CLI tools, it all composes: every trick it learns can plug directly into every other capability. Where-as with MCP, the LLM has to act as the pipe. Tool calls don't compose! It can read something like this tmux skill then just adapt it in all sorts of crazy ways! It can sort of do that with tool calls, but much less so. https://github.com/nickgnd/tmux-mcp I'd love to see a capnproto capnweb or some such, with third party handoff (apologies Kenton for once again raising 3ph), where a tool call could return a result and we could forward the result to a different LLM, without even waiting for the result to come back. If the LLM could compose tool calls, it would start to have some parity with the composability of the cli+skill. But it doesn't. And as of very recently I've decided that is too strong a selling point to be ignored. I also just like how the cli remains the universe system: if these are so isomorphic as I keep telling myself, what really does the new kid on the block really bring? How much is a new incarnation better if their capabilities are so near? We should keep building cli tools, good cli tools, so that man and machine benefit. That said I still leave the beads mcp server around. And I turn on the neovim MCP when I want to talk to neovim. Ah well. I should try harder to switch.

senordevnyc

I love the idea of MCP, but it needs a progressive disclosure mechanism. A large MCP from a provider with hundreds or even thousands of tools can eat up a huge amount of your context window. Additionally, MCPs come in a bunch of different flavors in terms of transport and auth mechanisms, and not all harnesses support all those options well. I’ve gone the other way, and used MCP-CLI to define all my MCP servers and wrap them in a CLI command for agent use. This lets me easily use them both locally and in cloud agents, without worrying about the harness support for MCP or how much context window will be eaten up. I have a minimal skill for how to use MCP-CLI, with progressive disclosure in the skill for each of the tools exposed by MCP-CLI. Works great. All that said, I do think MCP will probably be the standard going forward, it just has too much momentum. Just need to solve progressive disclosure (like skills have!) and standardize some of the auth and transport layer stuff.

avinashselvam

skills and mcp help with entirely different things. sure most products add a skill on using their mcp so that model's tool calling works good.

nout

Use both. These do different things.

turlockmike

Or use both. Remote MCPs are secure, CLI allows for programmatic execution. Use bash to run remote MCPs. I built this to solve this exact problem. https://github.com/turlockmike/murl

Aperocky

Occams Razor spares none. Everything will go to the simplest and most convenient, often both, despite the resistance of the complexity lovers. Sorry MCP, you are not as simple as CLI/skill/combination, and no, you are not more secure just because you are buried under 3 level of spaghetti. There are no reason for you to exist, just like Copilot. I don't just wish, but know you'll go into obscurity like IE6.

ok_dad

People in the comments still confused about “agentic development” vs. “agentic development”. One uses the cli best, while the other cannot use a cli very well. The first is using agents locally to develop. The second is developing an agent. Not necessarily for coding, mind you. Not even for just text sometimes. They are different cases, MCP is great for the latter.

tpoacher

> Skills are great for pure knowledge and teaching an LLM how to use an existing tool. But for giving an LLM actual access to services, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) is the far superior, more pragmatic architectural choice. There's your answer. If you want to use local tools, use Skills. If you want to use services, use MCP. Or, you know, whatever works best for your scenario.

lewisjoe

> ChatGPT can’t run CLIs. Neither can Perplexity or the standard web version of Claude. Unless you are using a full-blown compute environment (like Perplexity Computer, Claude Cowork, Claude Code, or Codex), any skill that relies on a CLI is dead on arrival. Incorrect observation. Claude web does support skills upload. I guess claude runs code_interpreter tool and filesystem in the background to run user uploaded skills. ChatGPT business plans too allow uploading custom skills in web. I can see Skills becoming a standard soon. But the concern still holds. When you publish a MCP you liberate the user out of installing anything. But with skills what happens if the skill running environment don't have access to the cli binary or if it isn't in PATH?

medbar

I still use vanilla Claude Code without MCP or skills, am I in the minority? Not trying to be a luddite.