What this is saying is again, that MCP is not a protocol. Which is the point of MCP, making it essentially worthless because it doesn't define actual behavioral rules, it can only describe existing rules informally.
This is because defining a formal system, that can do everything MCP promises to enable, is a logical impossibility.
MCP is not a protocol. It doesn't protocolize anything of use. It's just "here's some symbols, do with them whatever you want.", leaving it there but then advertising that as a feature of its universality. It provides almost just as much of a protocol as TCP, but rebuild on 5 OSI layers, again.
It's not a security issue, it's a ontological issue.
That being said. MCP as a protocol has a fairly simple niche. Provide context that can be fed to a model to perform some task. MCP covers the discovery process around presenting those tools and resources to an Agent in a standardized manner. An it includes several other aspects that are useful in this niche. Things like "sampling" and "elicitations". Is it perfect? Not at all. But it's a step in the right direction.
The crowd saying "just point it at an OpenAPI service" does not seem to fully understand the current problem space. Can many LLMs extract meaning from un-curated API response messages? Sure. But they are also burning up context holding junk that isn't needed. Part of MCP is the acknowledgement that general API responses aren't the right way to feed the model the context it needs. MCP is supposed to be taking a concrete task, performing all the activities need to gather the info or affect the change, then generate clean context meant for the LLM. If you design an OpenAPI service around those same goals, then it could easily be added to an Agent. You'd still need to figure out.all the other aspects, but you'd be close. But at that point you aren't pointing an Agent at a random API, you're pointing it at a purpose made API. And then you have to wonder, why not something like MCP that's designed for that purpose from the start?
I'll close by saying there are an enormous number of MCP Servers out there that are poorly written, thin wrappers on general APIs, or have some other bad aspects. I attribute a lot of this to the rise in AI Coding Agents allowing people with poor comprehension of the space enabling them to crank out this... Noise.
There are also great examples of MCP Servers to be found. They are the ones that have thoughtful designs, leverage the spec fully, and provide nice clean context for the Agent to feed to the LLM.
I can envision a future where we can simply point an agent at a series of OpenAPI services and the agent uses it's models to self-assemble what we consider the MCP server today. Basically it would curate accessing the APIs into a set of focused tools and the code needed to generate the final context. That's not quite where we are today. It's likely not far off though.
It shouldn't but often still is... and maybe a runbook like this is easier to handle than a script with possibly 1000 lines and not a single comment.
Of course, in your ideal world maybe nothing of this applies and you never have any incidents ;)
> But when everything is colorful, nothing stands out. Everything being colorful is as monotonous as everything being, well, monotone.
This is meaningless.
"When many things are different, everything is the same".
Its a sentence that seems meaningful, but actually is not. It's just abstraction without generalizing.
"000000000000000000000000000" is a sequence just as something as "H90F3iJsjo$(4Opla1zSKX@)!2k" because in the second sequence they're different and in the first they're all the same? Great, you just discovered sets and the axiom of choice.
We are literally discussing the difference within the sets! Obviously the second sequence is more diverse.
First, I thought your argument was going somewhere but then it took this turn.
I would agree with the first part and then argue that before the synthetics-revolution things were mostly just shades of browns(which is a type of dark unsaturated orange). Except for the upper classes who could afford the expensive colors. Now that color is cheap and normalized, it lost (some) of its allure. Not being able to signal your wealth anymore.
Now adding just a conjecture of mine; Now that 'clean' is still somewhat more expensive(upper classes still being able to afford more cleanliness by using other peoples labor), minimal textures(not literal textures but design-wise) are more attractive because it displays your wealth. Plain-white being the easiest to see blemishes on. With black being easier look unblemished. Also, 'tasteful' color arrangements will still signal your class somewhat due to requiring cultural knowledge.
I'm going to change your first example. Can you see what stands out?
"00000000qq000000000I0000000"
Now I'm going to change your second example, also by three characters. Can you see what stands out?
"H90F3iJsjo$(4ORma1sSKX@)!2k"
Is that a clearer example of what I'm trying to say? In the second example, because every symbol stands out, no symbol stands out. Or to put it more technically, noise has overwhelmed any signal.
But you're contrasting chaotic use of many different colors with neutrality, and arguing for environments with very little color rather than well-coordinated color; you argued above that color was just one element along with size, shape, texture etc., as if these qualities were mutually exclusive and design should only emphasize one at any given time.
Well yes, in practice color often is chaotic. Nobody is color-coordinating the cars in the road, or the houses on a street, or the signs and advertisements and billboards. It's a free-for-all that turns into garish noise.
And more neutral environments with accent colors makes sense because the main accent is always people and their clothing. Your patterned red dress won't clash with a neutral background. It will likely clash with a patterned orange wall. A more neutral environment allowed for lots of colored accents to exist without competing or clashing with them.
I have had full-color painted rooms in one home or another for >20 years and have yet to get tired of it. I like having the color saturation turned up high. You have your taste, but it's not objectively correct in any way.
> Modern taste is more about more neutral-colored foundations with color accents.
Yes, there's no such thing as "objectively correct" when it comes to design. But it's where Western society currently is in terms of the design of public spaces including offices, how your realtor will advise you to redecorate when putting your home for sale, etc. And there are principles of modern design that, while not judgeable as correct/incorrect, are widely accepted as established.
So that's great you like to be bombarded with color, but I'm talking about an explanation for where society has been and how it's evolved with regard to color.
I would describe it more as noise... When there are loud, clashing color patterns everywhere, it all turns into noise and nothing really stands out. It's like watching analog TV with poor reception... there's stuff there, but really hard to make out or focus.
I'm with GP on this, I'd prefer most things be somewhat subdued and letting key pieces come out. The subdued doesn't have to expressly be a shade of gray or brown/tan either.
Modern SCADA systems are designed like this too. They used to be a riot of programmer art in primary colours, with most things blinking at any one time. Now they’re grey-on-grey for anything “nominal” with alarms in orange or red. Far less migraine inducing and far easier to see the important things.
Sure you can. Red rose in a field of green for example. Human eyes evolved to see the colours the way they do precisely because they were working in a world where nearly everything is colourful and some things needed to stand out.
Have you looked at a field recently? Spot the flowers: https://wallpapercave.com/field-of-flowers-wallpaper - I'm not sure what you call colourful; but I call those colourful. The flowers are still hard to miss. The colour makes them more obvious.
If you want a more academic source; try https://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~ihaka/courses/120/Lectures/... slides 13 & 14. Colour isn't some random distraction, the human vision system uses it to help decide what to focus on. Then you get things like peacocks where they go all in on using colourful visualisations to attract attention.
I seriously don't know what you meant by the following:
> When everything is colourful you can't use colour to stand out. It's very simple. Obvious even.
My example is clearly a colorful painting, very vibrant, yet certain tones stand out. What you said is literally wrong. It's neither simple nor obvious. Spell out what you meant. Your counter example isn't obvious either.
