Previous Card
Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning with Lean Language Models
MCP vs CLI: Benchmarking Tools for Coding Agents
This article benchmarks MCP (Managed Control Plane) servers against direct CLI (Command Line Interface) tool usage for coding agents. It introduces 'terminalcp', a custom tool with both MCP and CLI versions, and evaluates its performance against 'tmux' and 'screen' across various tasks. The author concludes that tool design and documentation quality are more critical for agent performance than the underlying protocol. ✨
Article Points:
1
MCPs often degrade agent performance by flooding context; CLIs are preferred.
2
Custom `terminalcp` (MCP/CLI) benchmarked against `tmux` and `screen`.
3
Evaluation framework used Claude Code for tasks, repeating runs for consistency.
4
MCP vs CLI is a wash; MCP bypasses security checks, reducing token usage.
5
Tool design & documentation quality are more crucial than MCP vs CLI protocol.
6
Well-designed, token-efficient tools are key for agent performance.
MCP vs CLI: Benchmarking Tools for Coding Agents
MCP vs CLI Debate
MCPs: Context flooding, performance degradation
CLIs: Direct shell calls often better
MCPs sensible if no easy CLI or for stateful tools
LLM clients without shell need MCPs
Evaluation Setup
Custom terminalcp (MCP & CLI)
Compared against tmux & screen
Tasks: LLDB, Python REPL, Project Analysis
Claude Code as agent, 10 repetitions
Key Findings
MCP vs CLI: Overall success is a wash
MCP: Bypasses security checks, lower token usage
Screen: Failed on project analysis TUI issues
Task complexity impacts winner
Recommendations