The question
“MCP standardizes the tools. Who standardizes the work?”
The research begins with a specific goal: determine whether an existing combination already solves the problem before contemplating something new.
Why the distinction matters
Access to a tool is one part of a job. A complete responsibility also needs a purpose, context, a procedure, authority to act, a way to handle interruptions, and evidence of the result.
The question is how those pieces travel together when tools and workers change.
What the investigation should compare
- The unit of work: a task, a procedure, a workflow, or a continuing responsibility.
- How the intended outcome and required inputs are represented.
- How human approval and delegated authority survive handoffs.
- What happens when work pauses, fails, or needs new information.
- How completion is established from evidence.
- Whether the same work can move between implementations.
Current state
This is an open investigation. The question and research objective are established; this preview does not claim that a winning combination has been selected or tested.
The comparison should retrieve existing project decisions and implementations first, then assess relevant standards and tools against the same concrete job.
A useful next experiment
Choose one real responsibility that includes a tool call, an approval, a pause, and a verifiable outcome. Follow how each candidate combination carries the work across those steps. Record where a new abstraction is necessary and where an existing capability is sufficient.
Starting points
Research question and objective drawn from Will’s September 5, 2026 direction. The comparison structure is a proposed investigation outline, presented for review.