The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a pretty big deal these days. It’s become the de facto standard for giving LLMs access to tools that someone else wrote, which, of course, turns them into agents. But writing tools for a new MCP server is hard, and so people often propose auto-converting existing APIs into MCP tools; typically using OpenAPI metadata (1, 2).

In my experience, this can work but it doesn’t work well. Here are a few reasons why:

Agents don’t do well with large numbers of tools

Infamously, VS Code has a hard limit of 128 tools - but many models struggle with accurate tool calling well before that number. Also, each tool and its description takes up valuable context window space.

Most web APIs weren’t designed with these constraints in mind! It’s fine to have umpteen APIs for a single product area when those APIs are called from code, but if each of those APIs is mapped to an MCP tool the results might not be great.

MCP tools designed from the ground up are typically much more flexible than individual web APIs, with each tool being able to do the work of several individual APIs.

APIs can blow through context windows quickly

Imagine an API that returns 100 records at a time, and each record is very wide (say, 50 fields). Sending those results to an agent as-is will use up a lot of tokens; even if a query can be satisfied with only a few fields, every field ends up in the context window.

APIs are typically paginated by the number of records, but records can vary a lot in size. One record might contain a large text field that takes up 100,000 tokens, while another might contain 10. Putting these API results directly into an agent’s context window is a gamble; sometimes it works, sometimes it will blow up.

The format of the data can also be an issue. Most web APIs these days return JSON, but JSON is a very token-inefficient format. Take this:

[
  {
    "firstName": "Alice",
    "lastName": "Johnson",
    "age": 28
  },
  {
    "firstName": "Bob",
    "lastName": "Smith",
    "age": 35
  }
]

Compare to the same data in CSV format:

firstName,lastName,age
Alice,Johnson,28
Bob,Smith,35

The CSV data is much more succinct - it uses up half as many tokens per record. Typically CSV, TSV, or YAML (for nested data) are better choices than JSON.

None these issues are insurmountable. You could imagine automatically adding tool arguments that let agents project fields, automatically truncating or summarizing large results, and automatically converting JSON results to CSV (or YAML for nested data). But the tools I’ve seen do none of those things.

APIs don’t make the most of agents’ unique capabilities

APIs return structured data for programmatic consumption. That’s often what agents want from tool calls… but agents can also handle other, more free-form instructions.

For example an ask_question tool could perform a RAG query over some documentation, then return information in plain text that is used to inform the next tool call - skipping structured data entirely.

Or, a call to a search_cities tool could return a structured list of cities and a suggestion of what to call next:

city_name,population,country,region
Tokyo,37194000,Japan,Asia
Delhi,32941000,India,Asia
Shanghai,28517000,China,Asia

Suggestion: To get more specific information (weather, attractions, demographics), try calling get_city_details with the city_name parameter.

That sort of layering and tool chaining can be very effective in MCP servers, and it’s something you’ll miss out on completely if auto-converting APIs to tools.

If an agent needs to call an API, it could just do that

Agents like Claude Code are remarkably capable of writing+executing code these days, including scripts that call web APIs. Some people take this so far as to argue that MCP isn’t needed at all!

I disagree with that conclusion, but I do think we should skate to where the puck is going. Sandboxing of agents is improving rapidly, and if it’s easy+safe for an agent to call APIs directly then we might as well do that and cut out the middleman.

Conclusion

Agents are fundamentally different from the typical consumers of APIs. It’s possible to automatically create MCP tools from existing APIs, but doing that is unlikely to work well. Agents do best when given tools that are designed for their unique capabilities and limitations.

Say you’re working on an agent (a model using tools in a loop). Furthermore, let’s say your agent uses the Model Context Protocol to populate its set of tools dynamically. This results in an interesting UX question: how should you show text tool results to the user of your agent?

You could just show the raw text, but that’s a little unsatisfying when tool results are often JSON, XML, or some other structured data. You could parse the structured data, but that’s tricky too; the set of tools your agent has access to may change, and the tool results you get today could be structured differently tomorrow.

I like another option: pass the tool results to another agent.

The Visualization Agent

Let’s add another agent to our system; we’ll call it the visualization agent. After the main agent executes a tool, it will pass the results to the visualization agent and say “hey, can you visualize this for the user?”

The visualization agent has access to specialized tools like “show table”, “show chart”, “show formatted code”, etc. It handles the work of translating tool results in arbitrary formats into the structures that are useful for opinionated visualization.

And if it can’t figure out a good way to visualize something, well, we can always fall back to text.

Why do it this way?

The big thing is that we can display arbitrary data to the user in a nice way, without assuming much about the tools our agent will have access to. We could also give the main agent visualization tools (tempting! so simple!), but:

1. That can be very wasteful of the context window
   1. Imagine receiving 10,000 tokens from a tool, then the agent decides to pass those 10,000 tokens by calling a visualization tool - the 10,000 tokens just doubled to 20,000 in our chat history
2. The more tools an agent has access to, the more likely it is to get confused
3. A specialized visualization agent can use a faster+cheaper model than our main agent

It’s not all sunshine and roses; calling the visualization agent can be slow, and it adds some complexity. But I like this approach compared to the others I’ve seen, and we’re not far away from fast local models being widely available. If you’ve got another approach, I’d love to hear from you!