The Linux Foundation created the Agentic AI Foundation in December 2025 to govern the Model Context Protocol. Not a working group. Not a standards committee. A foundation.
When infrastructure matures from vendor protocol to foundation-level governance, something has shifted in the market. The web didn't get the World Wide Web Consortium until browsers and servers were already proliferating. REST didn't get formal standardization until microservices were already reshaping how teams built systems. Foundations emerge when the ecosystem needs institutional coordination—when the technology has proven itself operationally and the market is ready to build on it.
Foundations don't arrive early—they emerge when technology has proven itself operationally and the ecosystem needs coordination infrastructure.
We operate web agents across thousands of sites simultaneously. The coordination challenge isn't theoretical for us. When a hotel booking platform changes its authentication flow, switching from cookie-based sessions to hardware attestation or adding regional CAPTCHA variations, every agent monitoring that site needs updates. Not just the agent code. The entire stack:
- Session management layer
- Error handling logic
- Monitoring systems tracking auth success rates
- Analytics pipelines depending on that data
Authentication patterns vary by region. Bot detection thresholds shift unpredictably. Site structures change without notice. Before MCP, each variation meant custom integration work propagating across every system that touched that site. That overhead multiplies. Fast.
MCP standardization changes the operational calculus. Not because it makes integration easier—though it does—but because it creates the infrastructure layer where coordination patterns that weren't operationally viable become feasible.
Foundation Governance Means Production Requirements
When OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google converge on a standard, and the Linux Foundation steps in to govern it, the market is signaling readiness for production-grade coordination infrastructure. Foundation governance means the protocol needs to support enterprise requirements: versioning, security, backward compatibility, dispute resolution.
Consider what happened with REST standardization. The web outgrew custom protocols. REST's uniform interface constraint let systems evolve independently, which enabled:
- Microservices architectures
- API-first development patterns
- Integration marketplaces
- Independent system evolution
The standardization didn't just make HTTP easier. It created architectural foundations for entirely new operational approaches.
MCP follows a similar arc. Stateless HTTP interactions enable horizontal scaling. Existing monitoring tools work without modification. Runtime discovery means agents adapt to capability changes without coordination overhead. When a pricing service updates its authentication logic, agents consuming it through MCP endpoints adapt automatically. No custom integration updates. No coordination across agent codebases.
You can attempt coordination patterns that custom integrations made impractical. Multi-agent verification systems where agents share context through standardized interfaces. Dynamic adaptation where agents discover authentication requirements at runtime. Workflows that span multiple data sources without multiplying maintenance burden.
When Coordination Stops Being the Bottleneck
We've watched teams spend weeks coordinating agent updates when a major travel platform changed its rate structure API. Not because the change was complex. Because propagating it across monitoring agents, verification agents, and analytics pipelines required touching dozens of integration points:
- Each with custom error handling
- Each with different retry logic
- Each with its own authentication management
MCP standardization means that coordination overhead becomes O(1) instead of O(n). You update the service. Consumers adapt through interface contracts.
If this foundation-level governance succeeds, if MCP becomes the coordination layer for production agent systems, the constraint shifts. Teams will attempt multi-agent workflows that weren't operationally feasible before. Dynamic adaptation to site changes becomes realistic. The bottleneck moves from coordination overhead to what you actually want to build.
That's when things get interesting.
-
The N×M problem: Before MCP, custom connectors created exponential complexity where 20 systems with 20 agents required 400 separate integrations, each demanding ongoing maintenance when APIs changed.
-
Production deployment challenges: Infrastructure operators report that MLOps complexity remains significant even with MCP standardization, as managing dozens of distributed servers requires mature automation practices to avoid operational overhead.
-
Authentication standardization gap: While MCP provides coordination infrastructure, the protocol doesn't specify authentication mechanisms, leaving implementers to create their own solutions and potentially introducing security inconsistencies across different MCP servers.
-
Dynamic tool discovery: MCP enables agents to discover new capabilities at runtime without downtime, allowing systems to adapt workflows as requirements change and incorporate new functions without reprogramming.