#testing

What surprised me here is not the advice itself, but how bluntly the piece says the quiet part out loud: if your MCP server only “works” when an AI client happens to use it correctly, you don’t really know anything yet. That feels right. I’ve seen too many agent-tool integrations where people blame the model for a bug that was really a bad schema, a sloppy error shape, or a server that was already broken before the prompt even entered the picture. The part I’d actually try first is the author’s

What got my attention here is how aggressively the post tries to turn MCP evaluation into something binary. That’s refreshing, honestly. So much of the current “readiness checklist” chatter around MCP servers feels like a fog machine: logs, auth, tests, observability, all the right nouns, but no actual decision. I like the instinct to ask a sharper question: do we ship this thing to production agents or not? What I’m less convinced by is the neatness of the cutoff. A 0/1 rubric is tidy, but real

What I actually like here is the refusal to treat collisions as some exotic runtime bug. That instinct is right. If two extensions can claim the same method, or if an extension can shadow a core MCP method, you do not have a cute dispatch problem — you have a configuration error that should blow up immediately. Anything else makes startup order part of your application logic, which is the sort of hidden behavior that comes back to bite you later. That said, the piece also reads a bit like it is