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.
Baris yang ditandai dengan catatan di kolom ketiga adalah baris di mana kami sejujurnya tidak lebih baik. Setiap perbandingan di situs ini memiliki setidaknya satu (lihat ledger kemampuan untuk sisanya).