upvote
Agreed. I personally don't use any MCP but I think it was a good move.

I hope they'll do the same and eventually add native support for ACP (https://agentclientprotocol.com/get-started/introduction) which, on the contrary, I use quite.

reply
Arguably, adopting ACP might even help Pi’s case, in that it could escape the terminal interface into one of many wrapper GUIs. TUIs inherently tend to limit your userbase to those who know what a terminal is… And given OpenAI’s latest product announcement [0] in response to Meta’s, the trend seems to be to attempt an expansion of customers to the general population, away from just developers and maybe “business” people.

Then again, I don’t even know if general adoption is what Pi/Earendil is going for.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49896604

reply
I’m not sure; the integrated GUI seems like a major differentiator for them.

Pi’s agent is supposed to be simple, and a simple ACP agent is like a couple hundred lines of code. Making a system that allows UI plugins is way harder.

Also not sure if you’ve seen but you can get ACP from Pi with https://github.com/svkozak/pi-acp It bridges Pi’s RPC mode to ACP, works okay but not amazingly. My thinking level selector in Zed has never worked with it but everything else I use has worked (I’m sure other things don’t but I must not use them).

reply
Good points.

About what Pi/Earendil is going for, I can't really say but a while ago they created quite a stir in the Pi community for adding a trust system[0] which for many (me included) went against the loudly advertized "yolo" phylosophy, at that time I speculated it was a move to make it more palatable for the general population (whatever that actually means), so I'll stay optimist for ACP adoption for now.

[0]: https://pi.dev/docs/latest/security#understand-project-trust

reply
The "general adoption agent" for Earendil is their other product Lefos, that is based on Pi and uses email as the interface.
reply
FYI Pi can do RPC over stdio (though of course it's a bespoke thing, rather than standardised). I use Pi every day; never used the TUI (I forgot it even had one).
reply
You could already use MCP perfectly well on pi via extensions.

I'm not so sure about this move, or the general inclusion of code mode in the core editor as one of pi's main selling points was its minimal nature.

reply
If Armin and Mario want, they can just as easily move this back into a package and make it an optional thing to support if they want. There was already a heavily used mcp adapter package that they appear to have just finally incorporated fully.

Though as time progresses, they are probably going to do the same with sub-agents.

reply
I think MTP is kind of ok, since it's a common protocol, but I think incorporating sub-agents could be a mis-step.

There are a lot of ways to implement sub-agents, and it's not something I need the harness to be opinionated about.

I know builtin tools support opt-out, but it's more bloat. It's also more complexity for the agent to understand when you use it to build extensions for itself.

reply
Except there already was "something" that the creators of MCP just ignored.

Imagine a world where you could:

* Configure your favorite harness/chat client with any OpenAPI spec for an API that supports Oauth2.

* The harness would walk you through the Oauth flow and securely store the token.

* And then insert some tools for discovering the API methods and making requests in to the context.

* The agent could then formulate a request, call the request tool, and the harness would 1) makes sure it's allowed to make a request to that API, and 2) insert the Auth Token into the request.

It would be basically exactly the same way MCP is setup today, except all you would need is an OpenAPI spec. You wouldn't have setup a server for a janky new standard that's half implemented slightly differently by every harness/chat client.

reply
Yeah I'm not a huge AI bull but I've just never understood why MCP needs to exist when OpenAPI could've just been extended
reply
For that matter, why does OpenAPI need to exist when IDL could have been extended?
reply