Re:Stateless MCP has recaptured my interest
by bloppe on Wednesday August 05, 2026 @04:08AM
(#49179928)
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.
Re:Stateless MCP has recaptured my interest
by drdexebtjl on Wednesday August 05, 2026 @03:05AM
(#49179514)
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.
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.