tb1989

I totally agree. As someone with an EE background, this metaphor makes me a little physically uncomfortable. Considering that the developers and users of mcp are almost all programmers who need to use cli, I really don't understand why they don't tell the truth to programmers.

- The official example strongly promotes the Anthropic API, which is on GitHub. This is clear evidence.

- There is no clear explanation of the coupling between the system prompt and the tool call. Even if it mentions the open source Gemma or Deepseek, it would be much better.

The official attitude makes it difficult to trust this project.

The point you made is exactly the cunning part. Anyone can copy it, but without official support, it is simply impossible: this is pure community exploitation

Frankly speaking, labeling MCP as "USB-C for AI" is an exaggerated metaphor. USB-C is a universal standard driven by IEEE and the open-source community, while MCP is fundamentally an ecosystem tightly controlled by Anthropic itself. Despite adopting the MIT license, MCP is far from the spirit of genuine openness. For instance, the official examples exclusively utilize Anthropic’s own API, and the system prompt of LLM requests is hidden within their SDK—precisely the part that's crucial for openness.

Anthropic has historically been cautious, even conservative, regarding open source. They refuse to open-source Claude's CLI and the underlying model code, which makes their sudden enthusiasm for launching MCP, presented as an "open platform," rather puzzling. Is this openness genuinely for the community, or merely an attempt to benefit their own ecosystem and interests?

In reality, MCP is more like a clunky dongle that awkwardly connects HDMI or TF card readers specifically to their own models, rather than establishing a genuinely universal standard. It's nearly impossible for MCP to change the conventional methods of using APIs and authentication into an "AI-native" approach. Due to security considerations, this design inherently caps the potential of both agents and MCP itself.

For developers, MCP imposes high environmental prerequisites, like Python, Node, or Docker, virtually excluding non-technical users. The installation process is the opposite of elegant.

In the long run, this superficially open yet fundamentally closed approach is unlikely to win sustained community trust or long-term success. Security concerns, the allocation of community benefits, and the inherently closed mindset of the corporation are critical issues that will inevitably haunt MCP’s future development.

Calling MCP "USB-C for AI" feels more like marketing hype than technological reality.

Bro, this way of thinking of presuming others guilty is very primitive...Disclosure is very important! If you want to sell products overseas outside of mainland China, you must know this.

this 'grifter' is on TE's board, so things are out of control

Tell me one thing, not all (100%) AI companies are scammers, but all Internet scammers will definitely say that they are engaged in AI.