Skip to content
Comparaison

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.

Les lignes marquées d'une note dans la troisième colonne sont celles où nous ne sommes honnêtement pas meilleurs. Chaque comparaison sur ce site en comporte au moins une (voir le registre des capacités pour le reste).