And I would like to suggest that slowing the fuck down is the way to go. Give yourself time to think about what you're actually building and why. Give yourself an opportunity to say, fuck no, we don't need this. Set yourself limits on how much code you let the clanker generate per day, in line with your ability to actually review the code.

I'm a simple boy, so I like simple things. Agents can run Bash and write code well. Bash and code are composable. So what's simpler than having your agent just invoke CLI tools and write code? This is nothing new. We've all been doing this since the beginning. I'd just like to convince you that in many situations, you don't need or even want an MCP server.

My takeaway? Maybe instead of arguing about MCP vs CLI, we should start building better tools. The protocol is just plumbing. What matters is whether your tool helps or hinders the agent's ability to complete tasks.

That said, if you're building a tool from scratch and your users already have a shell tool available, just make a good CLI. It's simpler and more portable. Plus, the output of your CLI can be further filtered and massaged just by piping it into another CLI tool, which can increase token efficiency at the cost of additional instructions. That's not possible with MCPs.

Once you have a well-designed, token-efficient CLI tool, adding an MCP server on top of it is very straightforward.