Do you mean that some tools (MCP clients) pass all functions of all configured MCP servers in the initial prompt?
If that's the case:
I understand the knee-jerk reaction but if it works?
Also what theoretically prevents altering the prompt chaining logic in these tools to only expose a condensed list of MCP servers, not their whole capabilities, and only inject details based on LLM outputs?
Doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem.
> Do you mean that some tools (MCP clients) pass all functions of all configured MCP servers in the initial prompt?
Not just some, all. That's just how MCP works.
> If that's the case: I understand the knee-jerk reaction but if it works?
I would not be writing about this if it worked well. The data indicates that it worse significantly worse than not using MCP because of the context rot, and the low too utilization.
If that's the case: I understand the knee-jerk reaction but if it works? Also what theoretically prevents altering the prompt chaining logic in these tools to only expose a condensed list of MCP servers, not their whole capabilities, and only inject details based on LLM outputs? Doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem.