The 4 Big Myths Holding Back MCP Adoption (and How to Fix Them)
Introduction:
Model Context Protocol (MCP) is rapidly emerging as a foundational technology for building and deploying AI agents. Despite its growing importance, widespread misconceptions about MCP are slowing adoption and creating costly roadblocks for teams trying to integrate AI agents seamlessly with end-users, enterprise applications, APIs, and existing security frameworks.
As early investors in Arcade, an agent tooling and authentication platform, we wanted to unpack four critical misunderstandings about MCP. If you’re considering deploying AI agents in production, here’s how to avoid the top pitfalls with MCP and accelerate your rollout.
Image credit: Suchintan
Misconception 1: MCP Works Seamlessly in Production—But Reality Is Different
MCP provides a robust foundation for client-to-server authentication, but real-world deployments reveal critical gaps that lead to security risks, operational complexity, and scalability challenges.
What MCP solves: The current specification includes robust support for authenticating MCP clients (like Claude or Cursor) to MCP servers. This enables secure, remote MCP servers that can be deployed with proper access controls.
Why MCP Causes Production Issues:
Authentication and Security Challenges: MCP combines resource and authorization server roles, which complicates secure token management for downstream APIs like Google Drive. Since MCP does not natively manage OAuth tokens for multiple users, many teams use admin tokens as a workaround, increasing the risk of token leakage and unauthorized access. The protocol also lacks essential enterprise features like Single Sign-On, audit logging, and compliance tracking, forcing teams to build custom, often fragile, security solutions. Additionally, MCP does not support fine-grained authorization, such as distinguishing between reading, sending, or deleting emails.
Lack of Native Registry and Discovery: MCP lacks a standard mechanism for discovering available servers or tools, leading to bespoke registries or fragmented server management.
Transport and Performance Bottlenecks: Relying solely on HTTP and JSON for transport introduces latency and overhead, limiting performance in real-time AI agent workflows. The spec doesn’t support low level protocols.
At the architectural level, MCP deliberately shifts complexity from servers to clients. Clients own LLM interactions and context navigation, while servers provide semantic primitives (tools, resources, prompts). This design choice helps scalability but adds complexity to client development.
These gaps create security vulnerabilities, expose enterprises to data breaches, and increase operational costs due to custom engineering. Performance bottlenecks degrade agent responsiveness, while missing enterprise features limit adoption in regulated industries.
MCP sets the foundation, but reliability and scalability come from the infrastructure and tooling you build around it.
What Arcade abstracts: Arcade was built remote-first with production requirements in mind. It handles client-server and tool authentication flows seamlessly, provides secure multi-user token management, granular permission controls, enterprise SSO integration, and audit logging - eliminating the need to retrofit security into your MCP architecture or wait for specification updates. Once the MCP spec integrates the Arcade-led support for tool-level auth, your agents will be able to call Arcade tools over MCP as well.
“ At Arcade, we’re proud to contribute to shaping MCP into a truly enterprise-ready protocol. We see developers struggling to bridge the demo to production gap on a daily basis. Helping them turn their vision into reality is what Arcade is all about, and we can’t wait to do that for the entire MCP community.” - Mateo Torres, Developer Advocate
A practical development tip: starting with local MCP servers accelerates debugging and iteration before moving to remote hosting, where complexities like streaming HTTP and authentication become critical.
Misconception 2: Cloudflare’s MCP Offering Solves All Remote MCP Challenges
Cloudflare provides hosting and protocol compliance, but you still have to build everything else from scratch.
What Cloudflare does solve well:
Global deployment: Workers provide edge hosting with automatic scaling
Protocol compliance: Full support for MCP OAuth 2.1 and transport standards
Basic authentication: OAuth provider library handles client-to-server auth flows
Production hosting: Durable Objects for stateful MCP servers, SSL/security built-in
What still requires additional tooling:
Advanced authentication patterns: Enterprise SSO, token refresh logic, and downstream API authentication complexity
Developer experience: No SDK for rapid tool development, testing frameworks, or evaluation tools
What works now: Companies can use Cloudflare and Arcade together. You can deploy your MCP server on Cloudflare Workers for global hosting and protocol compliance, then leverage Arcade's SDK for LLM-optimized tool design, complex authentication flows, and rapid development tooling. Arcade can route tool calls to any MCP server, including ones hosted on Cloudflare, while providing enterprise-grade auth, testing/eval frameworks, and multi-model compatibility that you'd otherwise have to build from scratch. You can also host Arcade workers on Cloudflare, and get enterprise-grade tool-level auth today, before the MCP spec supports it.
Misconception 3: You Can Just Turn Your API Endpoints Into MCP
Traditional APIs are designed for deterministic applications, not language models. Developers expect known inputs and outputs, with applications calling specific endpoints in a predefined sequence. LLMs, however, thrive with tools structured around intents and optimized for their unique needs, which raw API endpoints rarely meet.
Why APIs Fall Short for LLMs:
Intents, not endpoints: LLMs perform best with tools described as high-level actions (e.g., “upload_to_drive(file, location, owner)”) rather than granular operations (e.g., “POST /files,” “PATCH /folders”). Wrapping APIs without restructuring them for intent-based interactions leads to inefficient tool selection and execution.
Lack of Structured Metadata and Usability: LLM-ready tools require clear parameter descriptions, example values, and human-readable explanations to guide model behavior. Raw APIs often lack this metadata, causing LLMs to hallucinate parameters or misuse tools, resulting in failed calls.
Complex Input/Output Schemas: APIs with nested or ambiguous parameters confuse LLMs. Responses should be flat, well-labeled, and easy to parse for both the model and downstream evaluation. Unoptimized APIs often return convoluted data, reducing reliability.
Inadequate Error Handling: When tools fail, error messages must be descriptive and actionable for LLMs and developers. Many MCP-wrapped APIs provide generic errors (e.g., HTTP 500), which LLMs struggle to interpret, leading to repeated failures or incorrect outputs.
What works now:
Arcade’s Tool Development Kit helps teams create tools that are LLM-friendly from the start. It provides tested design patterns, LLM evaluation tools, and a framework for real-world usability. Arcade coined the term Machine Experience Engineering, and it’s constantly pushing the boundaries of LLM-friendly tools that integrate real agency into AI-based applications.
A key best practice: Tools should have rich, custom descriptions specifying when and how to use them, and should be designed for composability rather than just direct API mapping. Unlike REST APIs which favor minimalism, LLM tools need to be explicitly descriptive and interrelated to guide the model effectively.
Misconception 4: MCP Replaces RAG
MCP is a communication protocol that can underpin Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), but it doesn’t replace it.
Where MCP excels:
Live, structured data: Real-time queries, precise filtering, and complex business logic baked into source systems
Taking actions: Creating tickets, sending emails, updating records
System-specific queries: Text-to-SQL scenarios and queries
Where RAG remains superior:
Unstructured data: PDFs, presentations
Cross-source discovery: Finding connections between different systems requires unified indexing and ranking
Fast, broad search: RAG provides rapid semantic lookup
What works now: The most effective agents use both: RAG for rapid discovery across unstructured data, combined with high-agency tools for drilling into specific systems and taking actions (through MCP and other protocols). This hybrid approach delivers comprehensive understanding plus actionable results. Today, you can leverage the power of RAG, as well as real agency by connecting a RAG system and Arcade tools to your agent. The RAG system will ground the agent’s knowledge base into verifiable data, and Arcade tools will enable the agent to act in the real world through emails, Slack notifications, and more.
Start With What Works Today
MCP is a promising protocol, but that does not translate to a production ready system. Successful teams are not relying on the spec alone. They are combining proven infrastructure like Cloudflare with developer tools like Arcade to bridge the gaps.
The most effective strategies come from understanding the division of responsibilities. Infrastructure handles deployment and transport. Arcade supports authentication, tool design, and usability. MCP provides the connective tissue between them.
While there is speculation about future models supporting MCP natively, current implementations rely on external SDKs and middleware for tool calling. Native model-level support for MCP remains uncertain and should be approached with measured expectations, emphasizing that today MCP is primarily an external orchestration layer rather than embedded within the core LLM.
If you’re facing challenges moving from MCP demos to reliable production systems, consider exploring how Arcade’s platform can help bridge the gaps in authentication, tool design, and scalability
Thanks for reading Forward Feed! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
