To avoid overwhelming an LLM's context with hundreds of tools, a dynamic MCP approach offers just three: one to list available API endpoints, one to get details on a specific endpoint, and one to execute it. This scales well but increases latency and complexity due to the multiple turns required for a single action.

Related Insights

Making an API usable for an LLM is a novel design challenge, analogous to creating an ergonomic SDK for a human developer. It's not just about technical implementation; it requires a deep understanding of how the model "thinks," which is a difficult new research area.

Simply offering the latest model is no longer a competitive advantage. True value is created in the system built around the model—the system prompts, tools, and overall scaffolding. This 'harness' is what optimizes a model's performance for specific tasks and delivers a superior user experience.

A major unsolved problem for MCP server providers is the lack of a feedback mechanism. When an AI agent uses a tool, the provider often doesn't know if the outcome was successful for the end-user. This "black box" makes iterating and improving the tools nearly impossible.

Instead of giving an LLM hundreds of specific tools, a more scalable "cyborg" approach is to provide one tool: a sandboxed code execution environment. The LLM writes code against a company's SDK, which is more context-efficient, faster, and more flexible than multiple API round-trips.

Pega's CTO advises using the powerful reasoning of LLMs to design processes and marketing offers. However, at runtime, switch to faster, cheaper, and more consistent predictive models. This avoids the unpredictability, cost, and risk of calling expensive LLMs for every live customer interaction.

OpenAI uses two connector types. First-party (1P) "sync connectors" store data to enable higher-quality, optimized experiences (e.g., re-ranking). Third-party (3P) MCP connectors provide broad, long-tail coverage but offer less control. This dual approach strategically trades off deep integration quality against ecosystem scale.

Developing LLM applications requires solving for three infinite variables: how information is represented, which tools the model can access, and the prompt itself. This makes the process less like engineering and more like an art, where intuition guides you to a local maxima rather than a single optimal solution.

The simple "tool calling in a loop" model for agents is deceptive. Without managing context, token-heavy tool calls quickly accumulate, leading to high costs ($1-2 per run), hitting context limits, and performance degradation known as "context rot."

Exposing a full API via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) overwhelms an LLM's context window and reasoning. This forces developers to abandon exposing their entire service and instead manually craft a few highly specific tools, limiting the AI's capabilities and defeating the "do anything" vision of agents.

While prompt engineering focuses on crafting the human message, context engineering is a broader discipline that also manages the flow of information from a potentially large number of tool calls, a key challenge in building effective agents.