|
Hello Reader, The last couple of weeks have been action-packed for Gen AI! Two specific announcements were at the forefront - MCP (Model Context Protocol) and A2A (Agent To Agent). In today's edition, we will learn the similarities and differences between both, and answer which parts YOU need to know for the job and interviews. MCPMCP is released by Anthropic. Before we understand MCP, let's understand the existing challenges. Let's say you send a prompt to the app, "What's the weather in Tokyo?". The LLM in the app doesn't know about the current weather, hence it invokes an agent that runs some code. This code reaches out to an external weather tool, which sends weather data in JSON to the agent. Agent passes it to the LLM, and the LLM formats the data in nice natural language and sends it to the user. Question is - how does the agent code interact with the weather tool? Via API. And to do that, as shown below, the agentic code, needs to know the API URL, required header information, and payload. This works, but there are some challenges too:
Hence, MCP was born! MCP standardizes the communication between the agentic code and tools (and local datasources, but tool is the most widely used). What does this mean?
Okay, so MCP standardizes the interaction between the Agent and the underlying tools. But what is this new A2A then? Let's find out. A2AMCP handles the communication between the agent and tools (and local datasources). But how about agent-to-agent? Let's look at the diagram below Agent B has the logic to get the stuff done with tools/datasources using MCP, and this part we understood from above. Now, Agent A needs to call Agent B. How does this happen BEFORE A2A was in the picture: Similar to any other API call, Agent A will invoke the API URL of Agent B, and pass AuthN/Z parameters, and a payload. This brings similar challenges as above:
A2A (or Agent2Agent) standardizes the communication between agents. What does this mean? A2A + MCP Flow
In summary, MCP standardizes the connection between LLM Agents and tools, and A2A standardizes the connection between two agents. They work hand in hand because they complement each other and do not compete with each other. This is a pretty detailed subject, and if you want a more detailed explanation with code snippets, check out video below: If you have found this newsletter helpful, and want to support me 🙏: Checkout my bestselling courses on AWS, System Design, Kubernetes, DevOps, and more: Max discounted links AWS SA Bootcamp with Live Classes, Mock Interviews, Hands-On, Resume Improvement and more: https://www.sabootcamp.com/
Keep learning and keep rocking 🚀, Raj |
Free Cloud Interview Guide to crush your next interview. Plus, real-world answers for cloud interviews, and system design from a top AWS Solutions Architect.
Hello Reader, I keep hearing the same concern from people who are considering Solutions Architecture: With AI changing so much of technology, is Solutions Architecture still a good career to pursue? My answer is that AI is definitely changing the role. Let’s go through some of the factors, look at some data, and then come to the conclusion. AI still needs infrastructure When companies build Gen AI applications, they still need compute, storage, networking, security, databases, monitoring,...
Hello Reader, Six months ago, an interviewer asking about Gen AI was a bonus round. Today it is standard. At AWS, Microsoft, Meta, JP Morgan, Verizon, and most large enterprise technology teams, Gen AI questions are showing up in every SA, FDE, and AI engineer interview regardless of the role's primary focus. The candidates who answer these well are not the ones who have read the most blog posts. They are the ones who can connect the concepts to real architecture decisions and explain the...
Hello Reader, GPT-6 Astra scored 99.9% on a benchmark nobody prepared it for. Six months ago, the best model scored 7.8% on that same test. Naturally, the internet declared coding dead and Jensen Huang posted that AGI is here. I went and opened the actual results page from the people who ran that benchmark. There is a second number sitting right there, on the same page. 62.7%. Same model, same benchmark tasks, two different evaluation setups. Nobody is quoting that second number. Here is...