AI Agents: MCP, ACP, A2A Communication Protocols

Table of Contents

The Dawn of Collaborative AI: Understanding Agents and Their Communication Protocols

John: Welcome, readers, to our deep dive into a truly transformative area of artificial intelligence: AI agents and the communication protocols that empower them. We’re moving beyond AI models that simply answer questions; we’re talking about AI entities that can plan, reason, and execute complex, multi-step tasks. It’s a significant leap forward.

Lila: Hi everyone! John, when you say “AI agents,” it sounds like something out of science fiction. Could you break down what makes an “agentic AI” different from, say, the chatbots many of us use daily? And what’s this “pre-standardization phase” I’ve heard you mention?

John: An excellent starting point, Lila. Think of a standard chatbot as a very knowledgeable librarian. You ask a question, it finds and provides an answer. An AI agent, however, is more like a project manager. You give it a goal – say, “plan my upcoming business trip to Tokyo, including flights, accommodation within a specific budget, and meetings scheduled” – and it doesn’t just answer, it *acts*. It can interact with various tools like airline booking systems, hotel websites, and your calendar, make decisions based on constraints, and execute the plan. This often involves multiple steps and reasoning.

John: As for the “pre-standardization phase,” it’s a term my colleague Sean Falconer aptly used. While we generally agree on what AI agents *should* be able to do, the current landscape is a bit like the early days of the internet. Many different approaches exist, but they don’t always speak the same language. This lack of interoperability (the ability for different systems to work together seamlessly) is a major hurdle. Imagine if your email app couldn’t send a message to someone using a different email provider – that’s the kind of problem we face with AI agents right now.

Lila: So, without these standards, we’re essentially building new kinds of “data silos,” as one of the articles we reviewed mentioned? Even if an agent is smart, if it can’t communicate or access data from other systems – like Salesforce or internal wikis – its usefulness is limited, right? It might just create more work trying to bridge those gaps.

John: Precisely. If an AI agent designed to analyze sales data can’t access your company’s CRM (Customer Relationship Management system) because they don’t have a common way to talk, its potential is severely capped. This is where AI communication protocols come into play. They aim to provide that common language, that standardized way for agents to interact with each other, with tools, and with data sources. Today, we’ll be focusing on a few key emerging protocols: the Model Context Protocol (MCP), the Agent Communication Protocol (ACP), and briefly, the Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol.

Who’s Building the Bridges?: The Minds Behind AI Communication Protocols

Lila: It sounds like a huge undertaking to create these standards. Who are the main players driving this, John? Are these typically big tech companies, or more grassroots open-source efforts?

John: It’s a mix, but currently, some of the most prominent protocols are indeed being spearheaded by major technology firms. Anthropic, known for its Claude AI model, is the driving force behind the Model Context Protocol (MCP). Google has developed the Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol. And IBM Research is behind the Agent Communication Protocol (ACP).

Lila: That’s interesting. What are their motivations? Is it about creating a walled garden for their own AI ecosystems, or are these genuinely open efforts to benefit the wider AI community?

John: That’s a fair question, and the answer is likely nuanced. While companies naturally want to foster ecosystems around their technologies, these specific protocol initiatives are largely being presented as open standards. For instance, MCP has been open-sourced by Anthropic. Google’s A2A is available on GitHub, and IBM’s ACP is also an open protocol. The stated goal for all of them is to promote interoperability and accelerate the development of more capable AI agent systems, which ultimately benefits everyone in the field.

John: Anthropic’s MCP, for example, aims to standardize how AI agents manage and share “context” when interacting with tools and data sources. Google’s A2A is focused on enabling direct communication and collaboration *between* different AI agents, regardless of their underlying frameworks. IBM’s ACP, while also for agent-to-agent and agent-to-human communication, is closely tied to their BeeAI open-source framework.

Lila: So, it’s less about locking people in and more about creating a common playground where different AI agents, built by different teams or companies, can actually work together? That seems crucial if we want to build truly complex and useful AI solutions.

John: Exactly. The vision is to move away from isolated, monolithic AI applications towards a more dynamic, interconnected ecosystem of specialized agents that can collaborate to solve problems far beyond the reach of any single agent. These protocols are the foundational building blocks for that vision.

Under the Hood: How AI Agents and Their Protocols Work

AI Agents: More Than Just Code

John: Before we dive deeper into the protocols themselves, Lila, let’s solidify our understanding of an AI agent. At its core, an AI agent is a software entity that can perceive its environment through sensors (which could be data inputs, API responses, etc.), reason about its perceptions to make decisions, and then act upon that environment through actuators (which could be API calls, sending messages, controlling robotic parts, etc.). Crucially, many advanced agents also have a learning component, allowing them to improve their performance over time.

Lila: That still sounds quite abstract. Could you give a simple analogy? And how is this different from a regular, complex software program?

John: A good analogy might be a highly skilled human personal assistant. You don’t tell them *every single micro-step*. You give them a goal, like “organize a surprise birthday party for Sarah.” The assistant then autonomously figures out the steps: check Sarah’s availability (discreetly!), find a venue, manage a budget, send invitations, coordinate catering, etc. They use various tools (phone, email, event planning software) and make decisions along the way. Traditional software is usually more prescriptive; you code every step and every conditional logic explicitly. AI agents, especially those powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), have a greater degree of autonomy and can devise novel plans to achieve goals based on a more general understanding and a set of available tools.

Lila: So the “reasoning” and “planning” parts are key differentiators, powered by the AI model inside the agent?

John: Precisely. The LLM often acts as the “brain” of the agent, interpreting goals, formulating plans, deciding which tools to use, and processing information. The agent architecture then provides the framework for this brain to interact with the outside world.

The “Tower of Babel” Problem: Why Protocols are Essential

John: Now, imagine you have several of these highly capable AI assistants, each specializing in different tasks. One is an expert researcher, another a brilliant data analyst, and a third a persuasive communicator. If they can’t understand each other or share information effectively, their collective power is lost. This is the “Tower of Babel” problem in the AI agent world. Without common communication standards, each developer or organization might build agents that operate in their own isolated way.

Lila: Can you give a practical example of where this breaks down? I remember the Confluent article mentioning a controller agent coordinating other specialized agents like a Planner, GenSQL, and Judge to predict Q3 revenue. What if those sub-agents weren’t designed to talk to each other initially?

John: That’s an excellent reference. In that revenue prediction example, the controller agent relies on seamless communication. If the Planner agent produces a plan in a format the GenSQL (a tool for generating SQL queries) agent doesn’t understand, the whole process grinds to a halt. Or if the Judge agent, which reviews the plan and results, can’t provide feedback in a way the controller or Planner can interpret, then revisions and improvements become impossible. This is where standardized protocols become vital. They define the “language” and the “rules of engagement” so that these different components, or even entirely separate agents, can collaborate.

Lila: So, it’s not just about agents talking to external tools, but also agents talking to *other agents* in a structured way?

John: Exactly. And this need is what drives the development of protocols like MCP, ACP, and A2A.

Model Context Protocol (MCP): The Universal Adapter for Tools and Data

John: Let’s start with the Model Context Protocol, or MCP, developed by Anthropic. As several sources, including InfoWorld and Codica, point out, MCP is designed to standardize how AI agents and models manage, share, and utilize context across tasks, tools, and multi-step reasoning. It essentially acts as a universal adapter.

Lila: “Context” is a word we hear a lot in AI. In MCP’s world, what does it specifically refer to? Is it just the data an agent is working on?

John: It’s more than just the immediate data. Context in MCP encompasses all the relevant information an AI model or agent needs to perform its task effectively. This includes the initial prompt or goal, the history of the conversation or interaction, data retrieved from external sources, the outputs of tools that have been used, and even the capabilities of the available tools. MCP provides a structured way to package and transmit this context.

John: MCP operates on a client-server architecture. The AI application (or agent) acts as the MCP client, requesting actions or information. The MCP server provides access to external resources like databases, APIs, or other tools. A key benefit, as highlighted by Cloudflare, is that MCP enables AI agents to access these external tools and data sources so they can more effectively take action, often without the client needing to know the intricate details of *how* to interact with each specific tool.

Lila: That sounds powerful. So, if an agent needs to query a Kafka topic (a real-time data stream), like in the Confluent example by Athavan Kanapuli, it doesn’t need to embed a Kafka client library itself? It just tells an MCP server, “Hey, list topics in this Kafka broker”?

John: Precisely. The agent, acting as an MCP client (in that example, Anthropic’s Claude model), sends a request to an MCP server that is specifically designed to interact with Kafka. The MCP server handles the translation of that request into actual Kafka commands, executes them, and returns the result in a standardized MCP format. The beauty is that the agent’s logic remains clean and focused on the “what,” while the MCP server handles the “how.” The `handler.go` file in Kanapuli’s GitHub example clearly shows functions like `CreateTopic` that the MCP server exposes. The server defines what it *can* do.

Lila: Microsoft’s Azure documentation also talks about building AI agents using MCP. How would a developer typically implement something using MCP? Is it about defining these server-side capabilities for each tool you want an agent to use?

John: Yes, a significant part of implementing MCP involves creating these “handlers” or “tool definitions” on the server-side. For each tool or data source you want to make accessible via MCP, you define a set of functions or capabilities that the MCP server can expose. Anthropic’s documentation also describes “hosts” – the LLM applications initiating connections – and how each host can have multiple clients. For more sophisticated interactions, you can even define prompt templates specific to a service. For instance, an MCP server for a healthcare database might have pre-defined functions and prompts for accessing patient health data in a way that respects privacy and ensures accuracy, essentially providing “prompt guardrails.”

Lila: So, MCP is really about standardizing that agent-to-tool or agent-to-data-source connection, making agents more versatile and development more modular?

John: Exactly. It allows developers to build specialized MCP servers for various tools (databases, APIs, knowledge bases) and then have AI agents interact with them through a consistent protocol, rather than writing custom integration code for every single tool. This also enhances memory and context sharing for agents, as noted by Orca Security and the Medium article on MCP for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).

Agent Communication Protocol (ACP): Enabling Collaborative Agent Ecosystems

John: Now let’s turn to IBM’s Agent Communication Protocol (ACP). According to IBM’s research blog, ACP gives AI agents a shared language to connect and collaborate to carry out complex, real-world tasks. It’s an open protocol designed for communication between AI agents, applications, and even humans.

Lila: How does ACP differ from just having agents expose APIs that other agents can call? Is it more than just a request-response mechanism?

John: It aims to be more comprehensive. While APIs are fundamental, ACP focuses on establishing a richer, more nuanced “conversation” between agents. IBM states that in ACP, an agent is a software service communicating through multimodal messages (meaning messages can contain text, images, data structures, etc.), primarily driven by natural language. The protocol is designed to be agnostic to how agents function internally, specifying only the minimum assumptions necessary for smooth interoperability.

Lila: The InfoWorld article mentions ACP focuses on BeeAI agent collaboration. What’s BeeAI, and how does it relate to ACP?

John: Good question. BeeAI is IBM’s open-source framework for building and deploying AI agents. It has three core components: the BeeAI platform (to discover, run, and compose agents), the BeeAI framework (for building agents in Python or TypeScript), and ACP itself, which serves as the communication backbone for agents built within or interacting with the BeeAI ecosystem. So, while A2A (which we’ll touch on next) aims for framework independence, ACP is currently closely integrated with BeeAI, facilitating communication for agents developed using that specific toolkit.

Lila: So, if you’re building agents with IBM’s BeeAI tools, ACP is the natural way for them to talk to each other and coordinate?

John: That’s the primary design. The core concepts in the ACP GitHub repo show similarities with A2A, like aiming to eliminate vendor lock-in for agent communication and using metadata for discovery, but its current practical application is tightly coupled with the BeeAI framework.

Agent2Agent (A2A) Protocol: Framework-Agnostic Collaboration

John: Briefly, let’s touch upon Google’s Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol. As described by InfoWorld and Google’s own A2A GitHub repository, A2A allows AI agents to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate directly with each other to solve complex tasks *without* being tied to specific frameworks or vendors. It’s related to Google’s Agent Development Kit (ADK) but is a distinct component.

Lila: “Opaque communication” was a term used. What does that mean in practice? Agents don’t need to know each other’s internal workings?

John: Precisely. Interacting agents don’t need to expose or coordinate their internal architecture or logic. This is achieved through metadata in identity files known as “agent cards,” which describe what an agent can do, and by using structured messages for requests. A2A clients send these requests to A2A servers, and the protocol supports real-time updates for long-running tasks. This gives different teams and organizations the freedom to build and connect agents without imposing new constraints on their internal designs.

Lila: So, A2A is more about a universal translator between agents built using potentially very different technologies and philosophies?

John: That’s a good way to put it. The healthcare use case mentioned, where agents from different providers in different regions communicate using A2A (potentially with Kafka for secure, asynchronous data transfer), illustrates this well. It’s about enabling interoperability at the agent-to-agent level, regardless of how those agents were built internally. Towards Data Science even notes that while MCP is about hooking up tools, A2A is more focused on the inter-agent dialogue itself.

The Architects and the Builders: Team and Community

John: The teams behind these protocols are, as we discussed, significant players in the AI field. Anthropic’s team is pushing MCP forward, leveraging their expertise in large language models. IBM Research, with its long history in enterprise AI, is developing ACP as part of its broader BeeAI initiative. And Google, a powerhouse in AI research and infrastructure, is championing A2A.

Lila: What about the community aspect? Are these protocols seeing active development and contributions beyond the core teams? How open are they really?

John: They are relatively new, especially ACP and A2A, which the Confluent article notes were released more recently in response to Anthropic’s successful MCP project. However, their open-source nature, with code and specifications available on platforms like GitHub, is a clear invitation for community involvement. We’re seeing developers experiment with them, like Athavan Kanapuli’s MCP-Kafka project or the discussions around building agents with MCP on Azure, as Microsoft Learn details. The AWS blog also mentions Anthropic open-sourcing MCP in 2024. Active GitHub repos are a good sign, and as adoption grows, we can expect more community contributions, tools, and libraries to emerge around them.

Lila: So, it’s still early days, but the foundation is being laid for broader community participation, which is usually key for a standard to really take off?

John: Absolutely. Widespread adoption and a vibrant community are critical for the long-term success and evolution of any open standard. The fact that major companies are backing these, and they are designed to be open, bodes well for their potential impact.

Unlocking New Frontiers: Use Cases and Future Outlook

John: The implications of effective agent communication are vast, Lila. Imagine a team of specialized AI agents collaborating on complex scientific research. One agent could be an expert in sifting through academic papers (perhaps using MCP to access research databases), another in performing complex simulations (using another tool via MCP), a third in analyzing the resulting data, and a fourth in drafting a research paper, all communicating seamlessly.

Lila: That sounds incredibly powerful! What about more everyday or business applications?

John: Consider automated business processes. A customer service agent (an AI) could handle initial queries, then, if needed, seamlessly hand off the case, along with all relevant context, to a specialized technical support agent (another AI) using a protocol like A2A or ACP. In cybersecurity, Swimlane is already exploring using MCP to enhance SecOps (Security Operations) by allowing agents to interact with various security tools. The Medium article on MCP for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) shows how it can improve AI’s ability to pull in and use external knowledge effectively.

Lila: So we could see AI agents managing different aspects of our digital lives, coordinating with each other? Almost like an “internet of agents,” where they all speak a common language or use translators?

John: That’s a compelling vision. While we’re still in that “pre-standardization phase,” these protocols are definite stepping stones towards such a future. The ability for multiple agents to collaborate intelligently, as one Medium article on MCP puts it, could lead to emergent intelligence – where the collective capability of the agent system surpasses the sum of its individual parts. Microsoft’s announcement of general availability for agent mode with MCP support on Visual Studio is a significant step, making it easier for developers to build these collaborative agent systems.

Lila: It feels like we’re on the cusp of AI not just understanding information, but actively *doing* things in the world in a much more coordinated and sophisticated way.

John: Precisely. The shift is from AI as a passive information provider to AI as an active, autonomous participant in complex workflows. And robust communication is the bedrock of that shift.

A Crowded Field?: Comparing the Protocols

John: We’ve touched on this, but it’s worth recapping the primary distinctions. Anthropic’s MCP, as many sources emphasize, is fundamentally about connecting AI agents to tools and data sources, standardizing how context is managed and shared in a client-server model. It’s the “socket” for agents to plug into the wider world of information and functionality.

Lila: And ACP and A2A are more about agents talking to other agents?

John: Correct. IBM’s ACP focuses on agent-to-agent and agent-to-human communication, particularly within or interacting with its BeeAI framework. It aims for rich, multimodal messaging. Google’s A2A, on the other hand, strives for framework-agnostic agent-to-agent collaboration, enabling agents built with different underlying technologies to still coordinate effectively using “agent cards” and structured messages.

Lila: Are these protocols competitors, then? Or could they potentially work together? For instance, could agents communicating via A2A then use MCP to access a common tool?

John: That’s a very insightful question. While they address slightly different aspects of the agent communication challenge, they aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. It’s plausible that an agent might use A2A to discover and initiate a collaboration with another agent, and then one or both agents might use MCP to interact with specific tools or data sources relevant to their collaborative task. The AWS blog post “Open Protocols for Agent Interoperability Part 1: Inter-agent communication on MCP” even suggests that MCP could serve as a foundational layer for some inter-agent communication patterns. So, we might see layered approaches or specialized uses where one protocol is better suited for a particular interaction type than another. The Ishir blog provides a good comparison of MCP vs A2A, highlighting their distinct paths.

Lila: So, it’s less of a “one protocol to rule them all” situation and more about a toolbox of standards for different communication needs in this burgeoning agent ecosystem?

John: For now, that seems to be the case. The landscape is still evolving, and the industry is figuring out the best ways to combine these capabilities.

Navigating the New Landscape: Risks and Cautions

John: With great power comes great responsibility, and the rise of autonomous AI agents communicating and acting in the world certainly brings potential risks. One major area of concern is security. If agents can autonomously access tools, APIs, and data, then robust authentication, authorization, and auditing mechanisms are paramount. We need to prevent unauthorized actions or data breaches orchestrated through compromised or malicious agents.

Lila: The Orca Security article specifically mentioned security risks with MCP and A2A when they “bring memory to AI.” What kind of risks are we talking about there? Data privacy?

John: Yes, data privacy is a significant concern. If agents are sharing context, that context might include sensitive information. We need to ensure that this sharing adheres to privacy regulations and user consent. Furthermore, the complexity of debugging and managing multi-agent systems can be a challenge. If something goes wrong in a chain of interacting agents, pinpointing the source of the error can be difficult.

Lila: What about the risk of agents being tricked or manipulated, perhaps through something like “prompt injection” where malicious instructions are hidden in data they process?

John: That’s a very real threat. Prompt injection, where an attacker crafts inputs to make an LLM-powered agent behave in unintended ways, is a known vulnerability. As agents gain more capabilities to act, the potential impact of such attacks increases. This is why developing “guardrails,” as mentioned in the Confluent MCP example, and robust input validation and sandboxing techniques are crucial. The protocols themselves need to be designed with security in mind, but the agent implementations using these protocols also require careful security engineering.

Lila: So, alongside developing these powerful communication tools, there’s a parallel need to develop equally powerful safety and security measures?

John: Absolutely. Responsible development in this space means co-developing the capabilities with the safeguards. It’s an ongoing challenge that the entire AI community needs to address proactively.

Expert Takes and The Road Ahead

Expert Opinions and Analyses

John: Many experts in the field are echoing the sentiment that these protocols, particularly MCP, are a vital step. Adi Polak from Confluent, in the InfoWorld article, really summarized it well: MCP from Anthropic connects agents to tools and data, A2A from Google standardizes agent-to-agent collaboration, and ACP from IBM focuses on BeeAI agent collaboration. Sean Falconer’s point about us being in a “pre-standardization phase” is also key – these are emerging solutions to a widely recognized problem.

Lila: What’s your personal take, John, as someone who’s watched the tech landscape evolve for years? Are these protocols the real deal for unlocking agentic AI?

John: I believe they represent a crucial evolutionary step. The ability for AI systems to not just process information but to interact, collaborate, and take action in a coordinated manner is where the next wave of AI innovation lies. Protocols like MCP, ACP, and A2A are providing the essential “plumbing” for this. They address the fundamental need for interoperability. While it’s still early, and we may see consolidation or further evolution of these standards, the direction is clear: a more connected and capable AI ecosystem. The emphasis on open standards is particularly encouraging, as it fosters broader adoption and innovation.

Latest News and Roadmap

John: The field is moving rapidly. As we noted, Anthropic open-sourced MCP in 2024, and Google and IBM released their respective agent communication protocols more recently. A very significant piece of news is Microsoft’s announcement that agent mode with MCP support is now generally available in Visual Studio. This kind of tooling and platform support from major players is a strong indicator of growing momentum and will likely accelerate adoption.

Lila: What should developers and tech enthusiasts be watching out for next in this space? Will one protocol become dominant, or will they specialize?</p

John: I’d watch for a few key developments. Firstly, wider adoption and more real-world use cases emerging for each of these protocols. Secondly, the growth of tooling and SDKs (Software Development Kits) that make it easier for developers to implement these protocols. Microsoft’s move is a prime example. Thirdly, we might see efforts towards greater interoperability *between* these different protocol families, or perhaps the emergence of a higher-level standard that incorporates concepts from all of them. It’s also possible that different protocols will find their niches – MCP for tool use, A2A for broad inter-agent chat, ACP within IBM-centric ecosystems, for example. The key will be to follow which protocols gain the most traction in terms of developer support and successful deployments.

Lila: It sounds like an exciting and dynamic area to keep an eye on!

John: Indeed. The ability to turn the potential of AI research into production systems that deliver real business results, as Adi Polak highlighted, will be a defining skill. Understanding and leveraging these emerging protocols will be a big part of that.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Lila: Okay, John, let’s try to summarize some key takeaways for our readers who might be new to all this. First off, what’s an AI agent in one simple sentence?

John: An AI agent is a software program designed to perceive its environment, make autonomous decisions, and take actions to achieve specific goals, often involving multi-step reasoning and tool use.

Lila: And why do these smart agents need special communication protocols? Can’t they just use existing web APIs?

John: While they do use APIs, specialized communication protocols provide a standardized language and structure for more complex interactions. This enables agents to collaborate effectively, share rich “context” (the necessary information and history for a task), and utilize diverse tools in a consistent way, much like humans need shared languages and conventions to tackle complex projects together.

Lila: We talked about three main protocols: MCP, ACP, and A2A. What’s the main difference between them in a nutshell?

John: In essence, Model Context Protocol (MCP) primarily focuses on standardizing how agents connect to and use external tools and data sources by managing context. Agent Communication Protocol (ACP) and Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol are more centered on agent-to-agent communication; ACP is currently closely tied to IBM’s BeeAI framework, while A2A aims for broader, framework-independent collaboration between agents.

Lila: Are these protocols going to be really complicated for developers to learn and implement?

John: They do introduce new concepts and architectural patterns. However, the organizations behind them, like Anthropic, IBM, and Google, are providing documentation, examples, and, in some cases, SDKs – for instance, Microsoft’s guides for building agents with MCP on Azure. The ultimate goal of these protocols is to *simplify* the development of complex, multi-agent systems by providing common building blocks, not to add unnecessary complexity.

Lila: Can I use these protocols with any AI model I like, for example, models from OpenAI, or are they tied to Claude, IBM, or Google models?

John: MCP was created by Anthropic, the makers of Claude, so it naturally has strong integration there. However, the design philosophy behind these protocols is generally to be model-agnostic where possible. They focus on standardizing the *communication layer* and the structure of information exchange, rather than dictating the specific Large Language Model (LLM) used as the agent’s “brain.” So, while initial examples might showcase a company’s own models, the aim is often for broader applicability. The ease of integration with different models might vary, but the protocols themselves are typically about the interaction patterns, not the model internals.

Our Mission

Design. Strategy. Brand.

About Us