My gripe is that they had the opportunity to spec out tool use in models and they did not. The client->llm implementation is up to the implementor and many models differ with different tags like <|python_call|> etc.
I'm with you on an Agent -> LLM industry standard spec need. The APIs are all over the place and it's frustrating. If there was a spec for that, then agent development becomes simply focused on the business logic and the LLM and the Tools/Resource are just standardized components you plug together like Lego. I've basically done that for our internal agent development. I have a Universal LLM API that everything uses. It's helped a lot.
It has the physical plug, but what can it actually do?
It would be nice to see a standard aiming for better UX than USB C. (Imho they should have used colored micro dots on device and cable connector to physically declare capabilities)
If I am looking at a device/cable, with my eyes, in the physical world, and ask the question "What does this support?", there's no way to tell.
I have to consult documentation and specifications, which may not exist anymore.
So in the case of standards like MCP, I think it's important to come up with answers to discovery questions, lest we all just accept that nothing can be done and the clusterfuck in +10 years was inevitable.
A good analogy might be imagining how the web would have evolved if we'd had TCP but no HTTP.