MCP Servers: The Hypothetical Backbone of AI‑Connected Tools

Imagine a world where your AI assistant can safely browse your local files, check your GitHub issues, or trigger a DevOps job — all without you writing a single integration script. That’s the vision behind the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and what some have called MCP servers: a proposed architectural pattern that could make AI models first‑class citizens in the software ecosystem.

To be clear upfront: as of early 2025, there is no official public specification or release from OpenAI (or any other organization) describing a protocol called Model Context Protocol or MCP servers. The concept appears in speculative discussions and developer circles as a potential evolution of how large language models (LLMs) might securely interact with external systems. What follows is an exploration of this hypothetical but technically plausible idea — a thought experiment grounded in existing patterns like JSON‑RPC, OpenAPI, and plugin architectures.

Let’s dive deep into what MCP servers could be, how they might work, and why developers are increasingly interested in standardized ways for AI models to access real‑world data and tools.

---

The Idea Behind MCP Servers

At their core, MCP servers are imagined as bridges between AI models and external systems. The idea is to move beyond simple text‑based interaction — where a model can only generate or analyze text — toward a structured, secure interface that lets it query APIs, manipulate files, or trigger workflows.

The Hypothetical Definition

If we were to describe it formally, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) would define a standardized way for an AI model to:

1. Discover available tools or resources (for example, a list of APIs or functions it can call).
2. Send structured requests (e.g., JSON objects) to those tools.
3. Receive structured responses that it can reason about.
4. Operate within a controlled, sandboxed environment where permissions and data access are tightly scoped.

The MCP server, in this sense, would be the runtime that exposes these capabilities — a sort of middleware between the AI model and the external world.

Why This Matters

Language models are getting smarter, but without structured access to external data, they’re still limited to what they’ve been trained on. MCP servers could, in theory, unlock new capabilities:

• Real‑time context: Querying live data from APIs or databases.
• Actionable reasoning: Executing commands, not just suggesting them.
• Controlled automation: Allowing developers to define exactly what an AI can and cannot do.

This would be a major step toward safe, useful, and developer‑friendly AI agents.

---

The Architecture: How MCP Servers Could Work

If MCP were real, its architecture would likely resemble other protocol‑based systems used in development — think of it as JSON‑RPC for AI agents.

1. The Model

The model (say, GPT‑like or a local LLM) would act as the client. It doesn’t execute code directly but sends structured requests to the MCP server describing what it wants to do.

2. The MCP Server

The server would be the broker. It registers available tools (for instance, get_user_data, create_issue, or run_build_pipeline) and exposes them through a schema. When the model calls a tool, the server validates the request, executes it, and returns the result.

3. The External Systems

These are the real‑world endpoints — APIs, databases, filesystems, or cloud services. The MCP server acts as a gatekeeper, controlling what the model can access and under what conditions.

A simplified conceptual diagram might look like this:

[ Language Model ] ⇄ [ MCP Server ] ⇄ [ APIs / Files / Databases / Services ]

Each layer is isolated but connected through well‑defined contracts.

---

A Hypothetical Example: Connecting an LLM to GitHub

Let’s imagine you want your AI assistant to manage GitHub issues for your project. Without MCP, you’d have to write custom code for every integration. With MCP, the process could be standardized.

Step 1: Defining the Tool Schema

An MCP server might expose tools like this:

{
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "create_issue",
      "description": "Create a new GitHub issue in a repository.",
      "parameters": {
        "repo": "string",
        "title": "string",
        "body": "string"
      }
    },
    {
      "name": "list_issues",
      "description": "List open issues in a repository.",
      "parameters": {
        "repo": "string",
        "state": {"type": "string", "enum": ["open", "closed", "all"]}
      }
    }
  ]
}

Step 2: The Model Sends a Request

When the model decides to create a new issue, it might send a structured request like this:

{
  "method": "create_issue",
  "params": {
    "repo": "example/repo",
    "title": "Bug: login form crashes",
    "body": "Steps to reproduce..."
  }
}

Step 3: The MCP Server Executes and Responds

The server validates the request, calls the GitHub API, and returns a structured response:

{
  "result": {
    "url": "https://github.com/example/repo/issues/123",
    "status": "success"
  }
}

The model can then incorporate this response into its reasoning — perhaps confirming to the user that the issue was created successfully.

---

Security and Control (Speculative but Essential)

If MCP servers ever become real, security would be their defining feature. Giving an AI model access to live systems is inherently risky, so strict boundaries would be necessary.

Some plausible design principles:

• Explicit tool registration: Only pre‑approved tools are exposed to the model.
• Schema validation: Every request must match a defined schema.
• Sandboxed execution: The MCP server runs in a controlled environment, isolated from sensitive systems.
• Auditing and logging: Every model action is recorded for transparency.
• Human‑in‑the‑loop controls: Developers can require confirmation before certain actions execute.

These ideas mirror patterns from existing plugin frameworks, like OpenAI’s own plugin system (introduced in 2023), which required manifest files and OAuth scopes.

---

Communication Protocols: JSON‑RPC and Beyond

While there’s no official link between MCP and any specific protocol, JSON‑RPC would be a natural choice for such a system. It’s lightweight, language‑agnostic, and widely supported.

A typical JSON‑RPC request might look like this:

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "list_files",
  "params": {"path": "/project/docs"},
  "id": 1
}

And the response:

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "result": ["readme.md", "changelog.txt"],
  "id": 1
}

The model could easily parse this structure, reason about it, and decide what to do next.

In a real‑world implementation, developers might layer on authentication, rate limiting, and versioning — all standard for modern APIs.

---

Why Developers Are Interested in MCP‑Like Systems

Even though MCP servers don’t officially exist, the concept resonates with developers because it solves real pain points:

1. Integration complexity: Every AI assistant today needs custom connectors. A protocolized system would simplify that.
2. Security: A standardized permission model would reduce risk.
3. Interoperability: Tools could work across different AI models, not just one vendor’s ecosystem.
4. Extensibility: Developers could build and share MCP‑compatible tools, much like npm packages or Python modules.

In short, it’s about creating a common language between LLMs and systems.

---

A Hypothetical Developer Workflow

Let’s imagine what working with MCP servers might look like in practice.

1. Run a Local MCP Server

A developer could launch a local MCP server to expose safe tools to their model:

python mcp_server.py --config tools.yaml

2. Register Tools

The configuration might declare which tools are available:

tools:
  - name: read_file
    command: cat
    args: ["{path}"]
    permissions: ["read"]
  - name: list_directory
    command: ls
    args: ["{path}"]
    permissions: ["read"]

3. Connect the Model

The model client connects to the MCP server, authenticates, and starts a session. From here, it can issue structured requests to perform tasks like reading or summarizing files.

This workflow would feel familiar to anyone who’s used REST APIs or microservices — except the client isn’t a human‑written app, it’s an AI model reasoning in natural language.

---

Comparison to Existing Systems

While MCP is speculative, there are real systems that point in a similar direction:

• OpenAI Plugins (2023): Allowed ChatGPT to call external APIs through manifest files.
• LangChain and LlamaIndex: Frameworks for connecting models to external data and tools.
• Anthropic’s Claude Tools: Similar concept — structured function calls for safe tool use.

MCP servers could theoretically unify these patterns into a vendor‑neutral standard.

---

Challenges and Open Questions

For MCP servers to move from concept to reality, several hard problems would need to be solved:

1. Standardization

Who defines the protocol? Would it be an open standard, or controlled by a single company?

2. Security Governance

How do you prevent a model from issuing malicious or unintended actions? What’s the fallback if something goes wrong?

3. Model Reliability

Even with structured tools, models can hallucinate. How do you ensure they call the right tool with valid parameters?

4. Ecosystem Fragmentation

If every vendor defines their own “MCP,” we’re back to square one — incompatible ecosystems.

5. Privacy and Data Residency

If MCP servers connect to sensitive data (like internal databases), how do you ensure compliance with privacy laws?

These are non‑trivial challenges, and they explain why no such protocol has yet emerged publicly.

---

A Glimpse at a Hypothetical Implementation

To make this more concrete, here’s a speculative Python sketch of what an MCP server might look like.

from flask import Flask, request, jsonify

app = Flask(__name__)

# Registered tools
tools = {
    "list_files": lambda params: os.listdir(params.get("path", ".")),
    "read_file": lambda params: open(params["path"]).read()
}

@app.route('/mcp', methods=['POST'])
def handle_request():
    data = request.get_json()
    method = data.get('method')
    params = data.get('params', {})

    if method not in tools:
        return jsonify({"error": f"Unknown method {method}"}), 400

    try:
        result = tools[method](params)
        return jsonify({"result": result})
    except Exception as e:
        return jsonify({"error": str(e)}), 500

if __name__ == '__main__':
    app.run(port=8080)

This is, of course, a toy example — but it illustrates the simplicity of the concept. The model would send JSON requests to this endpoint, and the server would respond with structured data.

---

The Broader Vision: AI as a First‑Class Developer Platform

If MCP‑like systems ever become standardized, they could redefine how developers build applications:

• AI‑native APIs: Instead of writing REST endpoints for humans, you’d design MCP tools for models.
• Composable intelligence: Models could call each other’s tools, forming distributed AI systems.
• Enterprise integration: Companies could expose internal services safely to AI assistants.

In essence, MCP servers represent a potential AI middleware layer — a new abstraction between intelligence and infrastructure.

---

The Skeptical View

It’s important to stay grounded. Without public documentation or working prototypes, MCP servers remain an idea, not a technology. There’s no evidence that OpenAI or any other organization has formally proposed or implemented something called the Model Context Protocol. References to MCP in online discussions appear to be community speculation about what the next generation of AI integration might look like.

That said, the underlying motivations — structured access, safety, and modularity — are very real. Whether through MCP or another standard, the industry is clearly moving toward secure, protocol‑based AI integration.

---

Potential Future Directions

If the concept gains traction, here are some directions it might evolve:

• Open standardization: A vendor‑neutral working group defining MCP as an open protocol.
• SDKs and libraries: Tools for building MCP servers in Python, Node.js, or Go.
• Model interoperability: Any compliant model could connect to any compliant server.
• Security frameworks: Built‑in authentication, authorization, and auditing.

It’s easy to imagine a future where MCP servers become as common as REST APIs — the glue connecting intelligence to action.

---

Conclusion: A Thought Experiment Worth Having

Even if MCP servers never materialize under that name, the idea captures something essential about the next phase of AI development: models need structured, secure, and standardized ways to interact with the world.

Whether it’s through MCP, plugins, or some future open standard, the goal is the same — to make AI agents both powerful and safe. Developers want tools they can trust, models need context they can reason about, and organizations need guardrails they can enforce.

So while the “Model Context Protocol” remains hypothetical, it’s a valuable blueprint for thinking about what comes next.

If you’re building in this space — experimenting with model integrations, agent frameworks, or AI middleware — keep an eye on this idea. The first open implementation of an MCP‑like system could very well define the next generation of AI infrastructure.

---

Disclaimer: As of publication, there is no official documentation, announcement, or open‑source release confirming the existence of MCP servers or the Model Context Protocol. All descriptions here are speculative and intended for conceptual exploration.

---

If you’re as fascinated by this as we are, consider subscribing to stay updated on emerging AI infrastructure standards and developer tools.