I think that's a fair point. How I envision this to realistically evolve is that MCP servers will expose workflows that handle common tasks. These workflows will be "agentic" because they'll involve LLMs interacting with tools and data, and it will be facilitated over MCP. For example, it would be great to have a "triage" workflow agent exposed by Linear, which in turn might use some MCP servers to make tool calls etc.

I don't know of a usecase where there are such deep recursive agent chains that it becomes unmanageable.

I almost think of mcp-agents as a modern form of scripting – we have agent workflows (e.g. generating a summary of new GitHub issues and posting on Slack), and exposing them as MCP servers has enabled us to use them in our favorite MCP clients.

Agents should be given a time budget, which they can allot to other agents as they see fit. And it's easy to enforce: you kill the process after the allotted time.

Agreed. Time, token, cost budget caps would be a great addition. Will add it as a feature request :)

Yeah, that was my first thought. I actually wrote a blog post a few weeks ago modeling the point at which agent recursion really gets out of control. https://www.neuralwatt.com/blog/agent-bedlam-a-future-of-end...

That's a valid concern. In `hacker-news-agents`, we're exploring ways to manage the complexity of multi-agent interactions. Perhaps a structured approach to agent communication and state could mitigate some of that 'microservice hell' feel.