Why a CLI Tool Beats an Equivalent MCP Server
Your project has both an MCP server and a CLI (gh) for talking to
GitHub, and both can do the task you need.
Per this subject's context-management guidance, which should you prefer, and why?
The correct answer is "The CLI — it adds zero per-tool context, unlike MCP."
MCP tool definitions are deferred by default, so only the tool's name enters context until Claude actually calls it — but a CLI still adds nothing at all, not even a name, until it's invoked. That's the actual reason to prefer it when both exist, not raw execution speed (which isn't the comparison being made) and not because MCP servers can't be permission-scoped — they can. Tool choice absolutely does affect context; that's the entire point of the recommendation.
Share this question