If agents are the new users, MCP is HTTP.

If you squint at the history of computing, every meaningful shift in who the user is has come paired with a meaningful shift in what the wire protocol looks like. Terminals had ANSI. The web had HTTP. Mobile had REST-shaped JSON. The agentic era has MCP.

That's not a marketing claim. It's a structural observation. When the caller changes — from a person at a keyboard to a model running in a loop — the surface they interact with changes too. People scan; agents enumerate. People click; agents call. People tolerate ambiguity; agents need contracts.

The boring claim

MCP is the boring, correct version of "agents need an API". It's not glamorous. It doesn't try to be. The point isn't that the protocol is innovative — it's that it's adequate, and that the industry is converging on it instead of inventing seven incompatible variants.

The interesting part isn't the protocol. It's the order of operations it implies. If you build MCP-first, the tools are the canonical surface and the UI is one of several clients. If you build UI-first and add MCP later, you end up with two systems that drift apart and have to be reconciled forever.

Why we're open

The last decade of SaaS taught us that lock-in is at the data layer, not the UI layer. If your data is in a proprietary schema in a proprietary cloud, your protocol is irrelevant — they own you. If your data is in an open schema and an open protocol, you can leave.

We think MCP wins when MCP-the-product becomes MCP-the-protocol — when nobody owns it, when implementations interoperate, when the bar for a new agentic application is "speak MCP" rather than "integrate with vendor X". The way to get there is for everyone to ship MCP, not for anyone to own MCP.

That's why Munin is open. Open code, open protocol. We don't want to be the proprietary winner of the agentic era. We want to be the boringly-correct implementation that helped move the industry to a place where the proprietary winner is impossible.