Honestly MCP is geared mainly for the non-technical folks who don't understand a thing about REST or OpenAPI (otherwise, of course folks can just ask models to search/parse/code/parse and get things done -- don't need to ask for an MCP endpoint at all). Models also do a lot better with tool calls than asking them to string together instrospection, web-search, curl, etc. (that's a lot of tokens) rather than having the endpoint expose a single URL that the model can take, auth, understand, and use.

I maintain https://endara.ai and you can very quickly introduce a ton of capabilities for Claude/Cursor/ChatGPT by configuring all the stuff you use in a single place (and slicing them with profiles if needed).

The user experience for a rest api and for mcp can be the same. For MCP, you have to give the mcp server url. For REST, you could provide a url to the openapi spec. The open API spec has everything you'd need - oauth url + all the endpoints and params.

Most chat products will just have a directory of connectors anyways - so for non technical folks they won't even here the term MCP or REST, they'll just "Install the Gmail plugin".

Yep. There's already a well-established system of `.well-known` URL paths to support things like API spec discover, auth discovery, etc. Why re-invent those wheels?

Because while an agent can indeed call a REST API directly using some other tool ( probably curl) what LLMs are good at is calling tools, and all MCP is doing is turning an API into a tool and standardizing authorization, which if you go the API route can be a nightmare as auth is not even mentioned in OpenAPI specs, usually, so the agent has to figure out how to do auth, and it will necessarily have access to your token and maybe even credentials, so it can easily leak it to attackers your agent happens to visit by just asking for it. I can’t believe anyone who has tried to give agents access to APIs in a sane manner hasn’t concluded that something on the lines of MCP is absolutely necessary.

OpenAPI 3.0 has auth. You can turn OpenAPI specs into tool calls just as well, without giving your agents access to call curl and without leaking credentials.

The problem is often that OpenAPI schemas are often incomplete, since they used to be useful to humans even in an incomplete state.

MCP basically requires you to do the equivalent work of getting your OpenAPI schema complete. It’s just much easier to sell to your managers.

I guarantee you any LLM will be perfectly capable of navigating HTTP auth [1] which has been around since 1999.

You could use `curl`, or you could bake an HTTP client tool into the agent harness which operates at a more abstract level. The agent would just have a tool that looks a lot like the Fetch API [2] and the harness could simply be configured to inject credentials using the various well-established patterns that have long existed, allow / deny certain methods, etc. The thing is, everything you can do with MCP could also simply be done with REST, so neither is inherently better than the other, I just don't like the proliferation of needless standards.

[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Guides/Aut...

[2]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Fetch_API/U...

You can’t be seriously proposing HTTP auth (you probably mean basic auth??) as a solution!? Just hand your raw credentials to the LLM, what could go wrong?

Letting the harness inject the credentials implies not exposing them to the LLM.

Besides, the current state of MCP authentication almost always involves just hard coding secrets in .claude/settings.json so it's not like that's doing a great job keeping the creds away from the LLM anyway. All I'm saying is that MCP auth offers no advantage.

Like many things in this fashion industry, how else do you get new conference subjects, consulting gigs, books,...?

I think by now even non-technical vibe coders have enough of an overview on REST APIs

The spec is more than just an OpenAPI scheme; it’s a strict wire format with shared semantics for a huge range of features.

Are you trying to say that REST APIs don't have a strict wire format with shared semantics for a huge range of features?

Kind of--I'm saying that RESTful APIs are just an abstract vocabulary to describe state transfer operations, whereas MCP describes a concrete set of such operations. REST sits on top of the HTTP protocol layer, MCP sits on top of REST (if we accept how the meaning of REST has been butchered, but you know what I mean.)

This is easy to see when you think in terms of a client: It is pretty much impossible to build an opinionated UI for any kind of RESTful API, while creating one for an MCP server is fairly self-explanatory: MCP servers offer a mandatory and complete runtime introspection endpoint (you can retrieve a listing of available tools/resources/prompts etc. along with their parameter and return type schemas). So that means clients have a way to exhaustively describe everything an MCP server is able to do with a vocabulary that carries over exactly to other servers - a tool is a tool everywhere.

See my point #2. There are already standards to describe APIs.

This is easy to see when you think in terms of a developer. The natural way to adapt an existing REST API into an MCP server while keeping the two synchronized is to simply write a basic translation tool that takes your OpenAPI spec and turns it into an MCP manifest, mapping each HTTP endpoint to an MCP method, and copying over all the request / response type signatures and descriptions for everything. Then, all of the sudden, it hits you: there is no need for this translation layer.

I think OpenAPI does all you mentioned in your comment too. Maybe MCP is more strict, in the sense that it requires natural-language descriptions, which are optional in OpenAPI, but I don’t see the distinction.

There are multiple products that turn OpenAPI schemas into front-ends nowadays.

Isn’t that the case? Aren’t REST people still debating about what makes a true beautiful REST API?

When I say REST, I basically mean HTTP/JSON. I know. Shame on me.

But there's a pretty large body of RFCs that define what makes a good REST API. For instance POST should create things, PUT should re-define them, PATCH should incrementally update them, GET must be side-effect-free, etc. And there's a ton of standard HTTP headers. Pair it with OpenAPI and the whole thing is self-documenting. You can achieve the same effect with gRPC + reflection, or GraphQL + reflection, and there's plenty of mature tooling and interoperability for each system.

By comparison, MCP actually has relatively few conventions. LLMs are very familiar with REST and OpenAPI already. Just use that.

REST has issues tough.

How do you send a big read only query? A POST? A GET hoping nothings logs it or swallows half of it?

How do you deal with delayed answers? Things that most HTTP middleware will timeout long before the result is achieved?

REST has issues if you limit yourself to think of the “resources” as your domain entities.

If you have a long running search, the resource is the search. Create a search. Fetch search results. Delete the search when you’re done.

Similarly, if you have a sufficiently complex command, the resource is the command itself. Maybe it requires async work, and you can later fetch the command results.

Anecdotally, this seems to be too big of a leap in mental model for beginners, mostly because all of the REST learning path does is teach you how to use it in CRUD domains.

I think you provide good and accurate information. However, what you described sounds like a workaround to me.

The read-only QUERY method can send much bigger requests than GET.

For delayed answers, MCP offers no improvement, because remote MCP servers use an HTTP transport anyway, and local ones don't involve middleware you can't control. Besides, that's well-trodden ground. SSE, trailers, gRPC streaming, websockets, simple polling, etc. We don't need another protocol.

The wire format certainly isn’t strict