Skip to content
比較

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.

第三欄標有附註的資料列，代表我們坦白承認自己並沒有做得更好。本網站上的每個比較都至少有一個此類標記（請參閱完整 能力總帳 以了解其餘內容）。