The SaaS company TRCR built an MCP server exposing ~150 tools for AI agents, and shares six key lessons from dogfooding with Claude: agents expose API flaws, tool descriptions matter as product copy, self-contained context is crucial, OAuth 2.1 is worth the pain, combining agents with billing data is powerful, and dogfooding shifts the product roadmap.
We're building TRCR — time tracking, tasks, clients and invoicing for freelancers, agencies and small teams. The core idea: you track time once, and everything downstream is automatic. Every team member has two rates — what the client pays and what the worker costs you — so revenue, margin and profitability per project/client are calculated in real time, and invoices are generated straight from tracked time entries. No exporting timesheets to a spreadsheet to figure out if a project made money. A few months ago we made a second bet: instead of just shipping features, we exposed almost the entire product as an MCP server so AI agents can use it directly. Today it covers \~150 tools across 21 domains (tasks, CRM, invoices, time, reports, chat...), with OAuth 2.1 and personal access tokens. And we dogfood it hard: our own task management and CRM run through Claude talking to our API. We even hand work to a coding agent by task ID — it pulls the full spec from the task itself. What we learned: **1. Agents are your most brutal API reviewer.** The moment an AI started using our API daily, every inconsistency surfaced — confusing parameter names, endpoints that return too little, missing bulk operations. Fixing the API for agents made it better for humans too. **2. Tool descriptions are product copy now.** An agent picks tools based on the description string. Vague description = tool never gets called. We rewrote them like microcopy, not docs. **3. Self-contained context beats clever integrations.** When we delegate a task to an agent, everything must live in the task itself — full spec in the description, source files as attachments. Any "it can just look it up elsewhere" assumption breaks. **4. OAuth 2.1 for MCP is painful but worth it.** PATs got us started fast; OAuth is what makes it feel like a real integration instead of a hack. **5. Agents + billing data = the killer combo.** The most magical moment wasn't task management — it was asking "which client was most profitable last month and draft them an invoice for June" and watching it pull time entries, apply the right rates, and produce the invoice. That's when exposing the *whole* domain (rates, time, invoices, reports) instead of just tasks paid off. **6. Dogfooding via agents changes your roadmap.** Half our recent backlog came from watching where the agent got stuck. The unexpected outcome: "works well with AI agents" is turning into our main differentiator, not a side feature. Happy to answer questions about building an MCP server for a SaaS — schema design, auth, what I'd do differently.
A CEO prototyped an AI agent using Claude MCP and NetSuite, but it failed to scale. BotsCrew rebuilt the stack, achieving 50% automation, 24x faster responses, and $140K annual savings.
After 3 months running AI agents in production across 3 SaaS products, the author shares what worked (GitHub MCP, Postgres MCP, Playwright MCP) and what broke (long tasks, auth walls, cost blowups, multi-tool orchestration errors), with a monthly cost of ~$430.
A tweet discusses how AI agents will use MCP servers for tool access, questioning how they will know when to use the tools, with an admission that nobody knows.
Anthropic shares engineering best practices for designing, evaluating, and optimizing tools for AI agents, specifically utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and Claude Code to improve agent performance.
A developer discusses the challenge of coordinating multiple MCP-speaking AI agents (like Claude Code and Cursor) working on the same project, sharing their self-built open-source solution using a shared 'room' model inspired by IRC, and asking the community for patterns and opinions.