@tobi: MCP vs CLI for LLMs is the wrong discussion. People are debating at the wrong layer. Both work incredibly well as long …
Summary
The article argues that the debate between MCP and CLI for LLMs is misplaced, as both work well with persistent state environments, and suggests future unification through a common execution environment.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 09/21/26, 03:43 PM
MCP vs CLI for LLMs is the wrong discussion. People are debating at the wrong layer.
Both work incredibly well as long as they are run through a repl like environment that can persist state. The funny thing about CLI is that CLI tools are usually accessed through BASH which happens to be a repl with persistent state (the file system), therefore cli works much better than mcp. But this isn’t even close to being an intrinsic property of MCP. Just means that we need better harnesses.
Right now the best repl for this are:
- bash + fs
- jupyter kernels
- codemode type repls, usually quickjs
LLMs understand the concept of forward evolving a system to solve a need very well. This comes from the agentic RL. They understand how to change the state of a codebase or acquire data from databases and then operate on it similarly to humans. But without an execution environment, they actually cannot do this properly.
My bet? Sometime soon someone will (or has already?) create a embeddable, sqlite style mini execution environment that parses bash, typescript, or tool calls into a common IL execution plan that’s easy to security check before executing. And design this specifically for durable execution environments. Then we will just connect cli, mcp, webmcp, whatever to that and it accepts any of the input modalities as they can all be represented as each other.
Similar Articles
@trq212: I was not expecting things to go this way, but I think MCPs are better than CLIs for most integrations. The models have…
The author argues that Model Context Protocol (MCP) is superior to Command Line Interface (CLI) for most AI integrations, citing improved tool calling and statelessness.
@akshay_pachaar: The MCP vs CLI debate. For most of 2025, AI Engineers argued about it. The skeptics had real numbers: - Playwright MCP …
Anthropic's 'Code Mode' reframes the MCP vs CLI debate by having AI agents write code to call tools via a runtime rather than loading full schemas into context, drastically reducing token usage. This approach combines MCP's typed contracts with lazy loading, proving the protocol is evolving rather than dying.
Skill + CLI or MCP
The author discusses their growing trust in LLMs and seeks advice on whether using AI skills with CLI tools or MCP servers is more optimized for token usage and less error-prone in software development.
@trq212: related to this- I think bash is no longer all you need, if your goal is just reliably tool calling but sandboxes + bas…
Thariq argues that MCPs are better than CLIs for AI tool calling due to improved model capabilities and MCP's stateless design, while bash and sandboxes are still good for code generation and execution.
Why MCP Was Always a Bad Idea?
The article argues that MCP, originally useful for connecting LLMs to external services, has become outdated due to advancements in LLMs that can now handle API calls directly, rendering many MCP servers unnecessary.