Middleware for AI Agents and Enterprise Strategy

​

Introduction

A new open standard has ignited unprecedented collaboration among rivals in AI. Model Context Protocol (MCP), heralded as the “USB‑C for AI applications,” proposes a universal approach to bridging AI models with external services and data sources. By simplifying connections through a shared interface, MCP has captured industry attention—its advocates liken this to how USB‑C streamlined device connectivity and how HTTP standardized web data exchange.

On April 7, 2025, Rahul Parundekar and Adria Hou discussed MCP’s potential as a non-proprietary middleware layer for AI agents, akin to how HTTP and USB‑C standardized web data exchange and device charging. This article dissects their conversation, intertwining their insights with broader industry perspectives. We explore core technical capabilities, delve into strategic implications, and examine second-order effects—all to give enterprise leaders a clear lens for deciding whether MCP belongs in their AI roadmap.

​

A “USB‑C for AI”: What MCP Does and Why It Matters

​

Universal Interoperability

MCP’s core function is to enable standardized interoperability between AI agents and external services. Described as an open protocol for secure tool and data access, MCP aims to solve the perennial integration pain point by mimicking the singular versatility of USB‑C.

​

The USB‑C Analogy

Just as USB‑C standardized device connectivity for power and data, MCP aspires to standardize how AI models integrate with tools. Early signs of industry consolidation emerged with Microsoft and OpenAI simultaneously supporting the protocol, giving MCP a powerful push toward widespread adoption.

​

The MCP Provider-Consumer Model

MCP’s architecture hinges on two roles: Providers offering services, and Consumers acting as AI agents that invoke those services. Initial local transport options proved limiting, but recent enhancements added networked transport (via streamable HTTP and SSE), making remote connections a reality and expanding AI’s reach.

Under the hood, MCP follows a client–server (consumer–provider) model. The AI agent (client/consumer) maintains a connection to each tool’s server (provider) and exchanges structured messages. The protocol was initially built around a local loopback or stdio transport, meaning the MCP Providers ran on the same machine as the agent. This allowed early experiments but limited real-world adoption. Recent updates introduced a networked transport (streamable HTTP + Server-Sent Events), enabling remote MCP connections. This is a turning point: it means an AI agent in a web app or on a phone can connect to an MCP Provider running in the cloud.

​

Technical Extensibility & Current Limitations

​

Authentication & Authorization

OAuth 2.1 integration and user consent screens anchor MCP’s security, but fine-grained permissions remain an open challenge, requiring additional layers of logic on providers’ side.

​

Workflow Orchestration

Though MCP is architected for one-to-one interactions, real-world AI scenarios often demand multi-step sequences across tools. Current approaches offload orchestration to agent frameworks; the protocol itself stays minimal to remain flexible.

​

User Context & Personalization

Enterprises need contextual awareness—like user pDeep Research—to power personalized agent decisions. MCP’s memory resources and potential shared context structures hint at a path for advanced personalization.

​

Rate Limiting & Observability

Providers must guard against runaway requests from autonomous agents. By leveraging existing API gateway tools for quotas and logging, companies can monitor usage, detect anomalies, and uphold trust in AI-driven interactions.

Despite rapid progress, MCP isn’t “enterprise-ready” on all fronts. To summarize a few critical gaps as of early 2025:

• Fine-grained Access Control: MCP currently has an all-or-nothing access per session. Enterprises will need to implement their own permission checks or wait for the protocol to evolve more granular controls.
• Transactional Safety & Payment Operations: There’s no built-in support yet for financial transactions or other sensitive multi-step ops.
• Reliability of Tool Use: Even with MCP standardizing access, LLMs often make mistakes in tool usage.
• Performance and Latency: Adding a middleware layer could introduce latency between an agent and a service.
• Ecosystem Maturity: MCP’s spec and SDKs are evolving monthly.

​

Exposing an MCP Endpoint: Strategic Business Analysis

​

Reasons to Embrace MCP

1. Expanded Reach & Usage: Infrastructure-like services (e.g., payments, communications) benefit from broad agent compatibility.
2. Competitive Differentiation: Smaller players can gain visibility by being first movers, integrating neatly with agent ecosystems.
3. Agent-Native Products: Entirely AI-focused services may pioneer new business models that rely on MCP connectivity.
4. Reduced Integration Overhead: Standardized protocols cut down on bespoke APIs and maintenance burdens across multiple platforms.

​

Reservations & Risks

1. Loss of UX Control: Consumer-facing brands risk becoming commoditized back-ends once AI agents own user interactions.
2. Data & Monetization Concerns: Advertising-based or data-driven platforms might see business models disrupted if AI intermediaries extract and display data independently.
3. Pricing Pressure: MCP’s interoperability could accelerate price competition and overshadow brand equity.
4. Operational Overhead & Abuse: Handling surge requests, ensuring compliance, and defending against unwanted data extraction demand robust governance—and possibly paid tiers or gating.

​

Competitive Dynamics and the Two Paths of MCP

History tells us that tech standards often take one of two routes: widespread adoption as a common layer or partial adoption with key holdouts. MCP’s fate will likely follow one of these paths, with big implications for competition and innovation.

​

Path 1: Everyone Uses It

In this scenario, all major players embrace MCP (even if grudgingly). The protocol becomes a ubiquitous, low-level standard. If this happens, two things occur: no one can monetize MCP itself, and vendors will add their own layers on top to differentiate.

​

Path 2: Everyone but One Key Platform Uses It

Here, all but a dominant player adopt MCP. One heavyweight holds out, trying to protect a strategic turf. This can lead to fragmentation—two parallel ways to integrate tools, extra work for developers, etc., slowing the full potential.

​

Second-Order Effects: Agents Everywhere, New Models, New Pressures

If MCP (or an equivalent protocol) takes hold, it could catalyze some profound second-order effects in the tech and business landscape:

• Agent-Based Automation: MCP-enabled AI agents could handle routine workflows 24/7, augmenting or even replacing some human tasks.
• Rise of Agent-Native Businesses: Entirely AI-focused services may pioneer new business models that rely on MCP connectivity.
• Pressure on AI Model Providers: Demand for the underlying AI models could skyrocket, but also become more price-sensitive.
• Evolving App Store and Marketplace Models: Marketplaces of MCP plugins could emerge, curating trusted providers and handling billing.
• Data Access and Policy Fights: Policy and legal battles over what agents can do by default may arise.
• User Expectation Shift: Users might expect seamless AI interactions with businesses, driving higher customer expectations for automation and AI responsiveness.

​

Real-World Examples and Early Adopters

• Cursor (Coding Assistant): Cursor supports MCP to allow users of its coding editor to query databases or create pull requests on GitHub using natural-language commands.
• Figma to Code Automation: Using an AI agent to bridge design and code, automating the handoff from design to development.
• Brex and Financial Agents: AI agents interfacing with corporate finance systems like Brex for transaction data and approvals.
• Stripe Payments through Agents: AI agents completing transactions on behalf of users, closing the loop for autonomous task completion.
• Internal Enterprise MCP Apps: Companies using MCP internally to break down silos for their AI tools.

​

Conclusion: Navigating MCP’s Trajectory – Questions for Enterprise Leaders

MCP represents a significant step toward an interoperable AI future—one where AI agents become as ubiquitous and plug-and-play as web browsers. For enterprise executives, the emergence of MCP poses both exciting possibilities and strategic dilemmas. As you evaluate MCP’s trajectory and your own AI integration roadmap, here are some actionable questions:

• Where Can an AI Agent Add Value in Our Operations?
• What Kind of MCP Provider Would We Be?
• How Will We Handle Security and Compliance?
• What if Our Competitors Embrace MCP First?
• Do We Need an MCP Strategy (or Task Force)?
• How Do We Maintain Our Brand/UX in an Agent-driven World?
• What Policies Should We Set for AI Usage?

MCP offers a glimpse of a more interconnected, automated future where interoperability could trump proprietary advantage. For enterprise leaders, the mandate is clear: pay attention, experiment, and be ready. MCP is about building an ecosystem on an open foundation, and that’s an idea no executive can afford to ignore.

​

Get Connected, Share, and Other Socials

Sources:

• Ars Technica – “MCP: The new ‘USB‑C for AI’ that’s bringing fierce rivals together”
• Cloudflare – “Build and deploy Remote Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers to Cloudflare”
• Runtime News – “Why AI infrastructure companies are lining up behind Anthropic’s MCP”
• LangChain Blog – “MCP: Flash in the Pan or Future Standard?”
• Steven Sinofsky – “MCP – It’s Hot, But Will It Win?”
• Drew DeVault’s Blog – “Please stop externalizing your costs directly into my face”
• Benedict Evans (analysis) – “AI might just be another feature/API” perspective
• Model Context Protocol Official Docs