Skip to content

Clarifying WebMCP's Place in the Machine Readable Web Stack #97

@admbradford

Description

@admbradford

Thanks for sharing this proposal. I like the direction. Moving agents from brittle UI actuation toward explicit, app provided tools feels like the right long term shape, especially for human in the loop workflows.

I have some firm opinions loosely held here. I do not think we would adopt WebMCP soon, but I could be convinced. A few questions would help me understand how this fits into the broader web stack and whether it can avoid fragmentation.

First, on overlap with the Semantic Web and existing action semantics:

  • One of the original goals of the Semantic Web is machine-readable data and capabilities. There are already established approaches for machine readable meaning and offered actions, including schema.org’s action model (potential actions, entry points, input/output annotations). How do you see WebMCP relating to that ecosystem?
  • Is the intent that WebMCP is purely an execution layer and deliberately does not try to model action semantics? If so, is there a recommended mapping or best practice so sites do not have to publish two parallel and potentially divergent descriptions of the same capability?

Second, on security model:

  • What is the intended authn/authz and consent model for tool calls? Are calls user scoped, agent scoped or both?
  • How are prompt injection, tool metadata poisoning and output injection meant to be handled in a way that is consistent across agent providers and browser vendors?
  • Is there an explicit threat model for cross-origin data flow when tool outputs from one site become inputs to another?

Third, on determinism versus interpretation:

  • Inputs can be typed via JSON Schema, but are outputs deliberately untyped, or do you expect a standardized output contract to emerge?
  • What parts of tool behavior are enforceable versus hint-based (for example, read-only hints)? What can an agent safely rely on?

Finally, on incentive alignment and adoption:

  • Who is the adoption wedge here? Browsers, sites, or AI platforms?
  • If cross-browser support is uncertain, what is the near-term value proposition for sites to implement WebMCP versus continuing with backend integrations and existing structured metadata?

Appreciate any clarification. I think the UI-present, user controlled workflow goal is compelling. I mainly want to understand how WebMCP coexists with existing machine readable web approaches and how you prevent fragmentation while you scale security and determinism.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions