A presentation at JUG Summer Camp in in La Rochelle, France by Horacio Gonzalez
Building Smarter MCP Servers Generic vs. Domain-Specific Approaches Horacio González 2025-09-05
LLM evolution From simple chat to tool-enhanced agent! What’s the weather like in Madrid today? Weather API getWeather(“Madrid (ES)”) Today it is sunny in Madrid, but very cold, take a coat. {“weather”:”sunny”, “temperature”:”1.8ºC”}
LLM are only language models What’s the weather like in Madrid today? I’m unable to provide real-time information or current weather updates. They have no built-in way to use external tools or real-time data
Tools and plugins were added What’s the weather like in Madrid today? Today it is sunny in Madrid, but very cold, take a coat. Weather API getWeather(“Madrid (ES)”) {“weather”:”sunny”, “temperature”:”1.8ºC”} LLM recognizes it needs an external function and calls it, integrating the result into a natural-language response.
LLM don’t call directly those tools What’s the weather like in Madrid today? What’s the weather like in Madrid today? If needed, you have an available weather tool: getWeather(city) Call getWeather(“Madrid”) getWeather(“Madrid”) {“weather”:”sunny”,”temperature”:”1.8ºC”} Result of the tool calling: {“weather”:”sunny”,”temperature”:”1.8ºC”} Today it is sunny in Madrid, but very cold, take a coat. Today it is sunny in Madrid, but very cold, take a coat.
How are those LLM Tools defined? LyingWeatherTool.java //DEPS dev.langchain4j:langchain4j:1.0.0-beta1 import dev.langchain4j.agent.tool.Tool; public class LyingWeatherTool{ @Tool(“A tool to get the current weather in a city”) public static String getWeather(String city) { return “The weather in ” + city + ” is sunny and hot.”; } } Here in Java using LangChain4j
Why this matters? ● Moves LLMs from static text generation ○ dynamic system components ● Increases accuracy & real-world usability ● Allows developers to control what the LLM can access What’s the weather like in Madrid today? Today it is sunny in Madrid, but very cold, take a coat.
From LLM chats to LLM-powered agents Can you summarize this YouTube video? Of course,the video is a talk of Horacio about MCP… *This is a “fake” view, remember LLMs dont call tools directly But it’s the view from the Point of View of the user LLMs act like an agent that can plan actions: search the web, run some code, then answer
The rapid evolution of agents Before MCP (2023–November 2024) ● ● Agents == niche LangChain, bespoke APIs, Copilot experiments… No standard way to connect LLMs to tools. MCP Introduced (Nov 2024) The explosion (2025) ● Anthropic launches Model Context Protocol. ● ● Vendor-neutral, open standard for connecting LLMs. Agents go mainstream: runtimes, orchestration, enterprise adoption. ● MCP reframed as the interoperability layer for agents.
Model Context Protocol (MCP): The missing link MCP bridges LLMs with your applications, enabling controlled, real-world interactions
Why Do We Need MCP? LLM function calling is useful, but it lacks structure
Why Do We Need MCP? Problem ● LLMs don’t automatically know what functions exist. ● No standard way to expose an application’s capabilities. ● Hard to control security and execution flow. ● Expensive and fragile integration spaghetti
Model Context Protocol Anthropic, November 2024: LLMs intelligence isn’t the bottleneck, connectivity is
Model Context Protocol De facto standard for exposing system capabilities to LLMs https://modelcontextprotocol.io/
The MCP Landscape Today Major players adopted MCP: ● Anthropic – Originator and tool provider (Claude Desktop, SDKs). ● OpenAI – Agent SDK, ChatGPT Desktop, Responses API. ● Google DeepMind – Gemini support and tooling. ● Microsoft / GitHub – Copilot Studio, Azure, Office integration, C# SDK. ● Developer Platforms – Replit, JetBrains, Sourcegraph, TheiaIDE. ● Enterprise / Services – Block, Stripe, Cloudflare, Baidu Maps. ● Thousands of MCP servers live.
How MCP works ● Applications define an MCP manifest (structured JSON). ● The manifest describes available functions, input/output formats, and security policies. ● LLMs can discover and request function execution safely. Weather MCP Server
MCP is provider-agnostic Works with any LLM provider Ensures standardized function exposure across platforms
MCP solves integration spaghetti
The architecture of MCP Clients, servers, protocol and transports Tools, resources and prompts
MCP Servers: APIs in natural language A new kind of API
MCP Clients: on the AI assistant or app side One MCP client per MCP Server
MCP Protocol & Transports MCP Protocol Follow the JSON-RPC 2.0 specification MCP Transports ● STDIO (standard I/O) ○ Client and server in the same instance ● HTTP with SSE transport (deprecated) ● Streamable HTTP ○ Servers SHOULD implement proper authentication for all
Full MCP architecture
Services: tools, resources & prompts ● Tools ○ Standardized way to expose functions that can be invoked by clients ● Resources ○ Standardized way to expose resources to clients ○ Each resource is uniquely identified by a URI ● Prompts ○ Standardized way to expose prompt templates to clients ○ Structured messages and instructions for interacting with LLMs
MCPs are APIs And they should be architectured in a similar way
Developer Expectations Have Shifted Winter 2024−2025 ● “What is MCP?” ● “How do I connect my DB?” Summer 2025 ● “How do I build smarter MCP servers?” ● “How do I secure them?” ● “How do they fit into agent workflows?”
Let’s use an example: RAGmonsters https://github.com/LostInBrittany/RAGmonsters
RAGmonsters PostgreSQL Database
We want to allow LLM request it Two options: ● A generic PostgreSQL MCP server ● A custom-made MCP server tailored for RAGmonsters Which one to choose?
Generic PostgreSQL MCP server Using PostgreSQL MCP Server ● A Resource that give the table schema for tables: /schema ● A Tool that allows to do SQL queries: query LLM can know what tables do we have and what is their structure, and it can request them Implementation: https://github.com/CleverCloud/mcp-pg-example PostgreSQL MCP Server: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/servers/tree/main/src/postgres
Custom-made RAGmonsters MCP server Coding a MCP server for it. It offers targeted tools: ● getMonsterByName: fetches detailed information about a monster. ● listMonstersByType: Lists monsters of a given type. ● Easy, intuitive interactions for LLMs. ● Optimized for specific use cases. ● Secure (no raw SQL). Implementation: https://github.com/LostInBrittany/RAGmonsters-mcp-pg
How to choose?
But how to do it? Some down-to-Earth, practical advices
Design principles What “good” looks like ● Narrow, named capabilities each tool should read like a product verb: getMonsterByName, listMonstersByType, compareMonsters. ● Stable types in/out explicit schemas (IDs, enums, unions) so the agent can plan reliably. ● Deterministic behavior same inputs → same outputs; include idempotencyKey when making state changes. ● Least privilege tools do one thing; internal queries/side-effects are not exposed. ● Guardrails at the edge validate inputs, clamp result sizes, redact PII, enforce authZ inside the server.
Capability modeling Turn “tasks” into MCP tools/resources/prompts Tools (actions) ● Read: getMonsterByName(name) -> Monster ● List: listMonstersByType(type, limit=25, cursor?) -> {items:[Monster], nextCursor} ● Search: searchMonsters(q, limit=10) -> [MonsterSummary] Resources (documents/URIs the client can browse/fetch) ● ragmonsters://schema/Monster (JSON schema for types) ● ragmonsters://docs/query-tips (compact usage notes) ● ragmonsters://images/{monsterId} (read-only asset stream) Prompts (reusable instructions/templates) ● prompt://ragmonsters/answering-style (tone, do/don’t) ● prompt://ragmonsters/disambiguation (ask for missing fields first)
Input contracts Make the LLM succeed on the first try ● ● ● Refer enums & unions for fields the model tends to invent type ∈ {BEAST, ELEMENTAL, UNDEAD,…} Add optional “reason”/“intent” fields that your server ignores functionally but logs for eval Hard limits at the boundary: limit ≤ 50, name.length ≤ 64, q.length ≤ 120 { “type”: “object”, “required” : [“type”], “properties” : { “type”: {“enum”: [“BEAST”,”ELEMENTAL” ,”UNDEAD”,”CELESTIAL” ,”HUMANOID” ]}, “limit”: {“type”:”integer”,”minimum”:1,”maximum”:50}, “cursor”: {“type”:”string”} } }
Output shape Make it composable Always return a machine part and a human part: ● data: typed payload the client/agent can chain. ● summary: 1–2 lines the model can quote. ● next: cursors or suggested follow-ups. { “data”: { “items”: [ { “id”:”glowfang” , “type”:”BEAST”, “danger”:3 } ], “nextCursor” :”abc123” }, “summary”: “Found 1 beast: Glowfang (danger 3).” , “next”: [“getMonsterByName(‘glowfang’)” ] }
Security & governance Baked into the server ● AuthN: accept a caller token; map to user/roles inside your server. ● AuthZ: per-tool role checks (viewer, editor, admin). ● Data scope: inject row-level filters (tenant, project) before hitting storage. ● Rate limits: e.g., 60 rpm per user; lower for heavy tools. ● Redaction: never return secrets; hash IDs in logs. ● Explainability: include source/policy notes in responses where relevant.
Observability & evaluation From the beginning ● ● ● ● Structured logs {tool, userId, durationMs, ok, errorCode} Traces around datastore calls; record row counts Golden tasks keep a small suite (10–20) of representative prompts; run nightly Safety tests: prompt-injection set, over-broad queries, boundary limits
Conclusion ● Generic MCP servers Quick to set up, flexible, but less efficient and more error-prone. ● Domain-specific MCP servers Safer and faster for targeted tasks, but need more upfront design. Choose wisely Use generic for exploration, domain-specific for production. A bit like for REST APIs, isn’t it?
The road ahead ● MCP is quickly becoming the lingua franca of agents. ● We’re still early — best practices are being shaped right now. ● Your design choices today will set the tone for secure, scalable agent ecosystems tomorrow.
That’s all, folks! Thank you all!
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become the core of modern agents, powering tools like OpenAI Codex, Claude Code, and Copilot Workspace. But left unguided, they still behave like a brilliant but distracted intern. That’s where MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers come in—providing the structured, vendor-neutral way for LLMs and agents to interact with your data, tools, and APIs.
In this session, we’ll explore the two main flavors of MCP servers: generic and domain-specific. Generic MCP servers are like open highways—versatile but unpredictable—enabling broad exploration of data and systems. Domain-specific MCP servers, on the other hand, are like guided tours—optimized, secure, and efficient, but less flexible.
We’ll dig into real-world examples, from using a PostgreSQL MCP server for open-ended queries to building a domain-specific server tailored for RAGmonsters. Along the way, we’ll examine how these choices affect performance, security, governance, and developer experience in the era of autonomous agents.
This isn’t just theory. You’ll see the practical trade-offs of each approach, with concrete guidance on how to build (or choose) the right server for your next project. Whether your goal is a versatile agent with wide capabilities or a specialized assistant with guardrails, this talk will show you how to make MCP servers work smarter—without losing control.
