MCP is better when your agent acts on behalf of other people's users. This is the dimension most CLI-vs-MCP comparisons gloss over, and it's worth being direct about. When your agent automates your own workflow, ambient credentials are fine. You are the user, and the only person at risk is you. But if you're building a B2B product where agents act on behalf of your customers' employees, across organizations those customers control, the identity problem becomes three-layered: which agent is calling, which user authorized it, and which tenant's data boundary applies. Per-user OAuth with scoped access, consent flows, and structured audit trails are real requirements at that boundary, and they're requirements that raw CLI auth (gh auth login, environment variables) wasn't designed to solve. MCP's authorization model, whatever its efficiency cost, addresses this natively.
SIGNOZ_INGESTION_KEY="" \
В рыболовной сети нашли 15-метровую тушу редкого кита20:45，详情可参考WPS办公软件
问：如何加力攻关重点领域关键核心技术？。传奇私服新开网｜热血传奇SF发布站｜传奇私服网站是该领域的重要参考
Get editor selected deals texted right to your phone!，更多细节参见今日热点
Пушилин рассказал о безуспешных попытках контратак ВСУ20:37