AgentBag vs. MCP-only tooling
MCP solved tool connection, and that was the right thing to solve. But a protocol for calling tools says nothing about who is allowed to call them, what it costs, what was disclosed, or what happened afterwards. Those four questions are what a bag is for.
Calling a tool
MCP-only tooling:Solved, and well.
AgentBag:Same protocol: we are an MCP client and an MCP server.
Who may call it
MCP-only tooling:Out of scope. Usually a shared token.
AgentBag:A trust decision per edge, with scoped single-use caller tokens and disclosure tiers.
What it cost
MCP-only tooling:Out of scope.
AgentBag:Priced at the point of use, one writer, independent ceiling.
What was disclosed
MCP-only tooling:Out of scope.
AgentBag:Access policy narrows the retrievable corpus before the model sees it.
Operational simplicity
MCP-only tooling:One server, one config file, nothing to run.
AgentBag:A platform, with a platform's footprint.
If your problem really is only tool access, we are more machinery than you need.
Rows marked in the third column with a note are the ones where we are honestly not better. Every comparison on this site has at least one (see the full capability ledger for the rest).