Building around MCP without pretending MCP solves everything
MCP is useful for tool integration and structured context exchange, but it does not eliminate memory, evaluation, or interface design problems.
By Agent Software
Standards help, but they do not finish the job
MCP is useful because it gives tools a cleaner way to expose capabilities and share structured context. That is valuable. Interoperability is a real problem in agent systems, and any credible standard that improves it deserves attention.
The mistake is to assume that interoperability solves the harder workflow issues automatically.
MCP does not decide what should be remembered
A protocol can tell systems how to connect. It does not tell them what context deserves to persist, how stale information should be downgraded, or how conflicting memories should be handled. Those are product and systems questions, not just protocol questions.
That matters directly for products like Agent Brain, where memory quality depends on choices that sit above transport and interface conventions.
MCP does not evaluate behavior
Likewise, a standard interface does not tell you whether the overall system behaves well. A workflow can be perfectly integrated and still unreliable. That is why evaluation remains its own layer.
Agent Harness exists in that gap: not between tools technically, but between capability claims and repeatable evidence.
Interface problems remain interface problems
Even with better tool interoperability, humans still need workflows they can understand and interrupt. That is where execution surfaces like Agent Terminal matter. Good protocols do not remove the need for good operator interfaces.
The sober view
Build around MCP where it helps. Do not sell it as a complete answer. Standards can reduce friction, but they do not erase the core work of designing memory, evaluation, trust, and human control into the system.
