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.
Le righe contrassegnate da una nota nella terza colonna sono quelle in cui onestamente non siamo migliori. Ogni confronto su questo sito ne ha almeno uno (vedi il registro delle funzionalità per il resto).