You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Write mermaid code for architecture and a ladder chart showing AI communication between:
- User
- AI Client
- LLM
- MCP Server
- MCP Registry
- Multiple MCP Agents
Include:
- All components and their roles.
- Communication paths with protocol labels (e.g., JSON-RPC, gRPC, message bus).
- Agent-to-agent communication.
- Sequence of interactions from user query to final response.
- Annotate steps like query, lookup, discovery, execution, result, response.
graph TD
subgraph User_Interaction
U[User] -->|Query JSON-RPC| AI_Client
end
subgraph AI_System
AI_Client -->|Request gRPC| LLM
LLM -->|Lookups gRPC| MCP_Server
MCP_Server -->|Lookup Data| MCP_Registry
MCP_Registry -->|Discovery| MCP_Agent1
MCP_Registry -->|Discovery| MCP_Agent2
MCP_Registry -->|Discovery| MCP_Agent3
end
subgraph Agent_Communication
MCP_Agent1 -->|Execute gRPC| LLM
MCP_Agent2 -->|Execute gRPC| LLM
MCP_Agent3 -->|Execute gRPC| LLM
end
subgraph Final_Response
LLM -->|Results gRPC| MCP_Server
MCP_Server -->|Final Result JSON-RPC| AI_Client
AI_Client -->|Response JSON-RPC| U
end
classDef blue fill:#66ccff,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px;
class U,AI_Client,LLM,MCP_Server,MCP_Registry,MCP_Agent1,MCP_Agent2,MCP_Agent3 blue;
Loading
sequenceDiagram
participant U as User
participant AI as AI Client
participant LLM as LLM
participant MCP as MCP Server
participant Reg as MCP Registry
participant A1 as MCP Agent 1
participant A2 as MCP Agent 2
participant A3 as MCP Agent 3
U->>AI: Query (JSON-RPC)
AI->>LLM: Forward Query (gRPC)
LLM->>MCP: Lookup Request (gRPC)
MCP->>Reg: Query MCP Registry (gRPC)
Reg->>A1: Discover Agents (gRPC)
Reg->>A2: Discover Agents (gRPC)
Reg->>A3: Discover Agents (gRPC)
A1->>LLM: Execute Task (gRPC)
A2->>LLM: Execute Task (gRPC)
A3->>LLM: Execute Task (gRPC)
LLM->>MCP: Return Results (gRPC)
MCP->>AI: Send Result (JSON-RPC)
AI->>U: Response (JSON-RPC)
Loading
prompt 2
Assume some of the mcp agents also interacts with llm for its operation, Not all agents need to be connected to LLM, maybe show a typical example with different LLM's and an agent without LLM interaction, provide a typical use case diagram, with the prompt etc. Also show the sequence like if the MCP registry interaction and the client happens first? add time line of the events with adding 1, 2, 3 on top of the arrows
Take an example query and show it in the flow, typical use case with an user prompt that requires agents that need to talk to llm etc; For example you can think the initial LLM that is used is 'claude sonnet' and the specialist to be something else
Perfect — let’s build a realistic, full example around your idea, where a user query triggers multi-agent orchestration involving multiple LLMs and different types of MCP Agents.
🧠 Scenario: Multi-LLM & Multi-Agent AI Orchestration Example
User Prompt:
“Analyze the uploaded sales dataset, summarize the key trends, and generate three marketing campaign ideas based on the insights.”
Roles of Components
Component
Role
Example
User
Originator of the query
Human input
AI Client
Front-end or orchestrator (UI/CLI/API gateway)
ChatGPT-like interface
LLM-Core (‘Claude Sonnet’)
Main reasoning model, coordinates task decomposition
Performs semantic understanding, planning
MCP Server
Task orchestrator and dispatcher
Manages communication with registry and agents
MCP Registry
Directory of available agents
Keeps track of specialized tools
MCP Agent 1 (Data Processor)
Loads and cleans data
No LLM interaction
MCP Agent 2 (Insight Generator)
Analyzes data trends
Calls a specialist LLM for reasoning
MCP Agent 3 (Marketing Ideator)
Generates campaign ideas
Works with the specialist LLM
**LLM-Specialist (‘Gemini-Pro’) **
Domain expert model
Provides marketing creativity and reasoning
🧩 1. Architecture Diagram (Mermaid)
graph TD
%% User Interface
U[User] -->|1️⃣ Query: "Analyze sales data and propose marketing ideas"| AI_Client[AI Client]
%% Core Reasoning Model
AI_Client -->|2️⃣ Forward Query (gRPC)| Claude[Claude Sonnet (LLM-Core)]
%% Task Planning & Coordination
Claude -->|3️⃣ Task Lookup (gRPC)| MCP_Server[MCP Server]
MCP_Server -->|4️⃣ Discover Agents (gRPC)| MCP_Registry[MCP Registry]
%% Registry Discovery
MCP_Registry -->|5️⃣ Found Agents| A1[Agent 1: Data Processor]
MCP_Registry -->|5️⃣ Found Agents| A2[Agent 2: Insight Generator]
MCP_Registry -->|5️⃣ Found Agents| A3[Agent 3: Marketing Ideator]
%% Task Dispatch
MCP_Server -->|6️⃣ Dispatch: Clean and Load Data| A1
MCP_Server -->|6️⃣ Dispatch: Analyze Trends| A2
MCP_Server -->|6️⃣ Dispatch: Create Campaigns| A3
%% Agents interacting with LLM Specialist
A2 -->|7️⃣ Reasoning Query (gRPC)| Gemini[Gemini-Pro (LLM-Specialist)]
A3 -->|7️⃣ Creative Prompt (gRPC)| Gemini
%% Result Aggregation
A1 -->|8️⃣ Cleaned Data (JSON-RPC)| MCP_Server
A2 -->|8️⃣ Trend Report (gRPC)| MCP_Server
A3 -->|8️⃣ Campaign Ideas (gRPC)| MCP_Server
MCP_Server -->|9️⃣ Aggregate Results (gRPC)| Claude
Claude -->|🔟 Final Summary (gRPC)| AI_Client
AI_Client -->|🏁 Response: "Here’s your summarized insight and campaigns." (JSON-RPC)| U
classDef user fill:#ffcccc,stroke:#660000,stroke-width:1px;
classDef llm fill:#ccffcc,stroke:#006600,stroke-width:1px;
classDef server fill:#cce5ff,stroke:#003366,stroke-width:1px;
classDef agent fill:#fff2cc,stroke:#996600,stroke-width:1px;
class U user;
class Claude,Gemini llm;
class AI_Client,MCP_Server,MCP_Registry server;
class A1,A2,A3 agent;
Loading
⏱️ 2. Timeline Sequence Diagram with Step Numbers
sequenceDiagram
participant U as User
participant AI as AI Client
participant Claude as Claude Sonnet (LLM-Core)
participant MCP as MCP Server
participant Reg as MCP Registry
participant A1 as Agent 1: Data Processor
participant A2 as Agent 2: Insight Generator
participant A3 as Agent 3: Marketing Ideator
participant Gemini as Gemini-Pro (LLM-Specialist)
U->>+AI: 1️⃣ "Analyze the sales data and propose marketing ideas" (JSON-RPC)
AI->>+Claude: 2️⃣ Forward Query for Reasoning (gRPC)
Claude->>+MCP: 3️⃣ Request Task Lookup (gRPC)
MCP->>+Reg: 4️⃣ Query Registry for Agents (gRPC)
Reg-->>MCP: 5️⃣ Return Available Agents (Data, Insight, Marketing)
MCP->>+A1: 6️⃣ Dispatch Data Processing Task (gRPC)
MCP->>+A2: 6️⃣ Dispatch Analysis Task (gRPC)
MCP->>+A3: 6️⃣ Dispatch Campaign Ideation Task (gRPC)
A1-->>MCP: 8️⃣ Return Cleaned Dataset (JSON-RPC)
A2->>+Gemini: 7️⃣ Ask for Trend Reasoning (gRPC)
Gemini-->>A2: 7️⃣ Return Analytical Insights
A3->>+Gemini: 7️⃣ Request Creative Campaign Ideas (gRPC)
Gemini-->>A3: 7️⃣ Return Marketing Concepts
A2-->>MCP: 8️⃣ Return Insights (gRPC)
A3-->>MCP: 8️⃣ Return Campaign Ideas (gRPC)
MCP-->>Claude: 9️⃣ Aggregate and Summarize Results (gRPC)
Claude-->>AI: 🔟 Final Structured Response (gRPC)
AI-->>U: 🏁 Present Combined Report and Ideas (JSON-RPC)
Loading
💡 3. Step-by-Step Narrative
Step
Actor
Description
Example Message
1️⃣
User → AI Client
User submits prompt with dataset
"Analyze uploaded sales data and propose campaigns"
2️⃣
AI Client → Claude (LLM-Core)
Passes user query for reasoning and planning
gRPC request containing user context
3️⃣
Claude → MCP Server
Decomposes query into sub-tasks (data, analysis, ideation)
Task plan JSON
4️⃣
MCP Server → MCP Registry
Looks up available agents by capability
“Find agents for data, insight, campaign tasks”
5️⃣
MCP Registry → MCP Server
Returns matching agents
Agent 1, 2, 3
6️⃣
MCP Server → Agents
Dispatches corresponding jobs
analyze, generate, summarize
7️⃣
A2 & A3 → Gemini-Pro
Some agents use a domain LLM for deep reasoning or creativity
“What trends exist in this dataset?”
8️⃣
Agents → MCP Server
Send outputs back
JSON results
9️⃣
MCP Server → Claude Sonnet
Aggregates and summarizes all agent outputs
Combined structured JSON
🔟
Claude → AI Client → User
Final synthesized response
Markdown table of insights + campaign suggestions
🪄 Example Final Output (as User Sees)
Sales Summary:
Revenue increased 12% QoQ, led by Region East.
Decline in Product Line B due to market saturation.
Campaign Ideas (via Gemini-Pro):
“Reignite the East” loyalty program
“Switch & Save” cross-product bundle
“Green Line Relaunch” eco-themed marketing
(Generated collaboratively by Claude Sonnet, MCP Agents, and Gemini-Pro)
Would you like me to extend this with a Mermaid use-case diagram (showing actors → use cases like “Analyze Data,” “Generate Insights,” etc.) to round out the documentation for this architecture?
prompt
does the mcp server on its own dispatch? or does this come from the Claude?
Excellent question — this is a subtle but crucial architectural distinction in multi-agent + LLM systems like those using an MCP (Model Context Protocol) architecture.
Let’s unpack it clearly.
🧩 Short Answer
💡 The MCP Server itself does not decide what to dispatch — the LLM (e.g., Claude Sonnet)decides what tasks to run, and the MCP Server executes or routes those instructions.
So:
Claude = Planner / Orchestrator (the brain)
MCP Server = Execution Router / Dispatcher (the hands)
🧠 Detailed Breakdown of Roles
Component
Primary Role
Control Responsibility
Claude (LLM-Core)
Task planner and semantic reasoner
Determines what needs to be done based on the user prompt. Generates a plan like “load dataset → analyze trends → generate campaigns.”
AI Client
Mediator between user and system
Sends user query to LLM, receives structured task plan back.
MCP Server
Execution engine
Receives task plan (often structured JSON via JSON-RPC or gRPC) from the LLM and executes or delegates it.
MCP Registry
Capability directory
Knows which agents can perform which actions.
MCP Agents
Action executors
Do the actual work: data retrieval, computation, content generation, etc.
LLM Specialist (Gemini-Pro)
Optional domain model
Invoked by agents or by Claude for specific reasoning tasks.
🔄 Typical Flow with Roles Clarified
🧠 Example Prompt
“Analyze the uploaded sales dataset and suggest three marketing campaigns.”
📜 Step-by-Step Flow
Step
Actor
Description
Responsibility
1️⃣
User → AI Client
Sends the query
Initiation
2️⃣
AI Client → Claude (LLM-Core)
Forwards the user query
Delegation
3️⃣
Claude
Parses intent and creates a task plan like: load_data → analyze_data → generate_campaigns
💡 Planning
4️⃣
Claude → MCP Server
Sends the structured plan via JSON-RPC/gRPC
Instruction
5️⃣
MCP Server → MCP Registry
Looks up which agents can handle each step
Discovery
6️⃣
MCP Server → MCP Agents
Dispatches execution according to plan
Execution
7️⃣
MCP Agents
Perform tasks, optionally calling LLM Specialist
Work
8️⃣
MCP Server → Claude
Returns results from all agents
Aggregation
9️⃣
Claude
Synthesizes all results into a final narrative or answer
Reasoning
🔟
Claude → AI Client → User
Returns final response
Delivery
⚙️ Architectural Relationship Diagram
flowchart LR
subgraph User Layer
U[User] -->|Prompt| Client[AI Client]
end
subgraph LLM Orchestration
Client -->|Query| Claude[Claude Sonnet (LLM-Core)]
Claude -->|Task Plan (JSON/gRPC)| MCP[MCP Server]
end
subgraph MCP Infrastructure
MCP -->|Capability Lookup| Registry[MCP Registry]
Registry --> MCP
MCP -->|Execute Tasks| A1[Agent 1: Data Processor]
MCP -->|Execute Tasks| A2[Agent 2: Insight Generator]
MCP -->|Execute Tasks| A3[Agent 3: Marketing Ideator]
end
A2 -->|Ask Reasoning Help| Gemini[Gemini-Pro (LLM-Specialist)]
A1 --> MCP
A2 --> MCP
A3 --> MCP
MCP -->|Results| Claude
Claude -->|Final Summary| Client
Client -->|Response| U
classDef user fill:#ffcccc,stroke:#660000;
classDef llm fill:#ccffcc,stroke:#006600;
classDef mcp fill:#cce5ff,stroke:#003366;
classDef agent fill:#fff2cc,stroke:#996600;
class U,Client user;
class Claude,Gemini llm;
class MCP,Registry mcp;
class A1,A2,A3 agent;
Loading
🧭 Summary — “Who’s in Charge?”
Function
Controlled By
Query understanding
Claude
Task decomposition
Claude
Task dispatching (execution)
MCP Server (based on Claude’s plan)
Agent selection
MCP Server + Registry
Specialized reasoning
Gemini-Pro or other LLMs
Final synthesis
Claude
✅ In short:
The MCP Server executes Claude’s plan — it dispatches, but it does not decide.
The LLM (Claude Sonnet) remains the cognitive planner, while the MCP Server acts as the logistical executor.
Would you like me to show this in a Mermaid “control responsibility” diagram (showing who decides vs who executes for each stage)? It’s a great way to visualize autonomy vs orchestration boundaries.
prompt
how does claude know about the different tools available? does the mcp server gives back the tools to the claude? does that happen even before the user starts the session
Excellent — you’re now touching the core design pattern of the Model Context Protocol (MCP) ecosystem:
👉 How an LLM (like Claude Sonnet) becomes aware of what tools, agents, and capabilities exist — and when that awareness happens.
Let’s break it down carefully and chronologically.
🧩 1. How Claude (or any LLM) knows what tools are available
🧠 Conceptual Model
The LLM (Claude Sonnet) doesn’t have the tools “baked in.”
Instead, it learns dynamically from the MCP Server about available tools or agents through capability registration and discovery messages.
This is part of the MCP handshake that establishes the “context” in which the model operates.
🔄 2. Two Phases of Tool Awareness
Phase
When It Happens
Description
A. Initialization (Session Setup)
Before user prompt
The AI Client and LLM connect to the MCP Server to discover available toolsets. This builds a registry context so the model knows what it could call later.
B. Dynamic Discovery (Runtime)
During a session (after a prompt)
If Claude needs additional tools it wasn’t aware of, it can query the MCP Server (via the client) to discover or refresh capabilities dynamically.
🧭 3. Typical Session Bootstrapping Sequence
Let’s go step by step:
🕓 Before user asks anything
1️⃣ AI Client connects to MCP Server
→ The client sends a capabilities request (usually over JSON-RPC or gRPC).
This might look like:
{
"method": "mcp.listTools",
"params": {}
}
2️⃣ MCP Server queries the MCP Registry
→ The server requests the list of all currently registered agents and their APIs (tools, endpoints, schemas).
3️⃣ MCP Registry responds with capability metadata
Each entry might contain:
4️⃣ MCP Server provides the tool manifest to the LLM (Claude)
→ The LLM (via the AI Client) receives a structured “tool manifest” that it can load into its context:
5️⃣ Claude embeds this manifest in its working context
Now Claude “knows” that tools called data_cleaner, trend_analyzer, and campaign_generator exist, along with how to invoke them.
6️⃣ Session begins
When the user finally submits a query, Claude can reason like:
“To analyze this dataset, I should call data_cleaner first, then trend_analyzer, then campaign_generator.”
⚙️ 4. Dynamic Discovery During a Session
Sometimes, Claude might need more tools mid-session — for example:
“I need a geolocation service,”
but that wasn’t part of the initial registry context.
In that case:
Claude asks the MCP Server for new tools (mcp.lookupTool).
The MCP Server re-queries the Registry.
The Registry returns new tool definitions.
The MCP Server updates the tool manifest and sends it back to Claude.
So the awareness can evolve dynamically as the conversation evolves.
🧭 5. Diagram — Tool Awareness Lifecycle
sequenceDiagram
participant Client as AI Client
participant Claude as LLM (Claude Sonnet)
participant MCP as MCP Server
participant Reg as MCP Registry
Client->>+MCP: 1️⃣ Initialize session (connect)
MCP->>+Reg: 2️⃣ List available tools
Reg-->>MCP: 3️⃣ Return tool metadata (agents, endpoints)
MCP-->>Client: 4️⃣ Send tool manifest (JSON)
Client-->>Claude: 5️⃣ Inject tools into system prompt/context
Claude-->>Claude: 6️⃣ Builds awareness of tools
Claude-->>MCP: 7️⃣ (Later) Request specific tool execution
MCP-->>Reg: 8️⃣ Resolve agent & dispatch
Loading
🧱 6. Example of “Claude’s Context Manifest” (Internal Representation)
When Claude starts a session, the AI Client might prepend a system message like:
System message (hidden context):
You have access to the following tools via the MCP protocol:
- data_cleaner: Cleans and normalizes tabular datasets.
- trend_analyzer: Extracts trends from structured data.
- campaign_generator: Suggests marketing strategies.
You may call them using the JSON-RPC `mcp.callTool` method.
That’s how the model semantically understands what it can do before a user says anything.
🧠 7. So to answer directly:
Question
Answer
How does Claude know about different tools?
The MCP Server provides a tool manifest (list + schema) during initialization.
Does the MCP Server send these back to Claude?
Yes — usually through the AI Client, which injects the manifest into the model’s context.
Does this happen before the user starts the session?
Typically yes — during session setup, though dynamic lookups can occur mid-session.
Can the set of tools change dynamically?
Yes, MCP allows on-demand discovery or agent registration.
Would you like me to show a Mermaid diagram illustrating both the initial discovery (pre-session) and runtime discovery (during session) side by side?
That would make it visually clear how the awareness evolves.
Write the above in a format as a text book way to explain
Certainly. Here’s the same explanation rewritten in a textbook-style format, with clear sections, headings, and definitions—suitable for inclusion in a technical architecture or AI systems design text.
Chapter: Tool Awareness and Discovery in MCP-Based LLM Systems
1. Introduction
Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Claude Sonnet can extend their capabilities beyond pure language reasoning by using external tools and agents.
In the Model Context Protocol (MCP) ecosystem, these external capabilities—called agents or tools—are registered and discovered dynamically.
The LLM itself does not have static, built-in knowledge of these tools. Instead, it learns about them through a structured communication process with the MCP Server and the MCP Registry.
2. Architectural Overview
The key components involved in tool awareness are:
Component
Role
LLM (Claude Sonnet)
Performs reasoning and task planning based on user prompts and known tools.
AI Client
Manages the user session and communication between the user, LLM, and MCP infrastructure.
MCP Server
Acts as the execution router; provides tool manifests to the LLM and dispatches execution tasks.
MCP Registry
Maintains the master list of all registered agents, their endpoints, and capabilities.
The AI Client, MCP Server, and MCP Registry work together to provide the LLM with an up-to-date view of what tools are available.
3. Phases of Tool Awareness
Tool awareness in MCP systems occurs in two main phases:
A. Initialization Phase (Pre-Session Discovery)
Before the user sends any query, the system establishes a session and populates the model’s context with available tools.
Session Initialization
The AI Client connects to the MCP Server and requests a list of registered tools.
Registry Query
The MCP Server queries the MCP Registry to obtain the latest list of agents and their metadata.
Tool Manifest Generation
The MCP Server consolidates this information into a structured tool manifest.
Each tool entry typically includes:
Tool Manifest Delivery
The manifest is returned to the AI Client, which injects it into the LLM’s system context (e.g., as part of the system prompt).
Context Awareness
The LLM now becomes aware of what tools exist, their capabilities, and how to invoke them through standardized calls (e.g., mcp.callTool).
At this point, Claude Sonnet can plan and reference tools intelligently during reasoning, even before the user begins interacting.
B. Dynamic Discovery Phase (Runtime Discovery)
During the user session, the LLM may encounter situations that require tools it does not currently know about.
In such cases, the LLM can request dynamic discovery through the AI Client and MCP Server.
Tool Lookup Request
The LLM asks for additional capabilities (e.g., “Is there a geolocation service?”).
MCP Server Query
The MCP Server again queries the MCP Registry for available or newly registered tools.
Tool Manifest Update
The MCP Server returns new tool metadata to the AI Client.
Context Refresh
The AI Client updates the LLM’s context, enabling the model to use newly discovered tools within the same session.
This dynamic model supports continuous extensibility, allowing new agents or services to register with the MCP ecosystem while a session is active.
4. Example: Pre-Session Tool Awareness Workflow
The following sequence illustrates how Claude Sonnet gains awareness of tools before the user begins interaction.
sequenceDiagram
participant Client as AI Client
participant Claude as LLM (Claude Sonnet)
participant MCP as MCP Server
participant Reg as MCP Registry
Client->>+MCP: Initialize session (connect)
MCP->>+Reg: Request list of available tools
Reg-->>MCP: Return tool metadata (agents, endpoints)
MCP-->>Client: Send tool manifest (JSON)
Client-->>Claude: Inject tools into system prompt/context
Claude-->>Claude: Build internal tool awareness
Loading
At the end of this process, Claude Sonnet has received contextual instructions such as:
System Message:
“You have access to the following tools via MCP:
• data_cleaner – Cleans tabular data
• trend_analyzer – Extracts patterns
• campaign_generator – Suggests marketing strategies.”
5. Example: Runtime Tool Discovery Workflow
If Claude Sonnet encounters a need for a tool that was not part of the initial manifest, it can perform dynamic discovery:
sequenceDiagram
participant Claude as LLM (Claude Sonnet)
participant MCP as MCP Server
participant Reg as MCP Registry
Claude->>MCP: Request lookup for additional tools (mcp.lookupTool)
MCP->>Reg: Query updated agent list
Reg-->>MCP: Return new tool capabilities
MCP-->>Claude: Send updated tool manifest
Claude-->>Claude: Refresh tool awareness
Loading
This design allows tool ecosystems to evolve dynamically, supporting new capabilities without restarting the session.
6. Key Design Principles
Principle
Description
Decoupling
The LLM does not directly store or maintain tool definitions. Tool metadata is retrieved via standardized MCP interfaces.
Context Injection
The AI Client embeds the tool manifest into the LLM’s context, allowing natural-language reasoning about tools.
Dynamic Extensibility
Tools can be added or removed at runtime; the MCP Server mediates awareness updates to the LLM.
Structured Interchange
All communication between components follows standardized protocols (JSON-RPC or gRPC).
7. Summary
In MCP-based AI systems, the MCP Server is responsible for providing the LLM with an up-to-date manifest of available tools.
This typically happens before the user starts interacting, during the session initialization phase.
However, the system also supports on-demand dynamic discovery, allowing the LLM to query for new capabilities as needed.
Thus:
Claude Sonnet functions as the planner and reasoner.
The MCP Server acts as the dispatcher and manifest provider.
The MCP Registry serves as the source of truth for available agents and capabilities.
Together, they enable a flexible and extensible multi-agent ecosystem for intelligent, tool-augmented reasoning.
For a moment lets not focus on dynamic discovery but take the entire end to end workflow, don't stop with the discovery of tools; include "user" in the flow.
Excellent — now we’re going to describe the entire end-to-end workflow, from the moment a user initiates a query all the way to the final response, including tool awareness, orchestration, execution, and aggregation.
This will be written in a textbook-style explanation, suitable for a technical architecture document or systems design chapter.
We’ll use Claude Sonnet as the main reasoning LLM, and the MCP ecosystem as the execution and coordination layer.
Chapter: End-to-End Workflow in an MCP-Based LLM System
1. Introduction
In a Model Context Protocol (MCP)–enabled system, a Large Language Model (LLM) interacts with a network of agents, tools, and servers to fulfill user requests.
This architecture allows an LLM, such as Claude Sonnet, to function as a planner—determining what needs to be done—while specialized agents execute the specific subtasks.
The workflow can be divided into three logical phases:
Initialization Phase: Establishes tool awareness and prepares the session.
Execution Phase: Handles the user’s query, planning, and tool invocation.
Aggregation and Response Phase: Collects results and produces a final synthesized answer.
2. System Components
Component
Role
User
Originates a query, typically in natural language.
AI Client
Manages user interaction and bridges communication between the user, LLM, and MCP Server.
Claude Sonnet (LLM-Core)
Serves as the reasoning and planning agent that decomposes complex tasks into subtasks.
MCP Server
Manages tool registration, task routing, and execution orchestration.
MCP Registry
Stores metadata describing available agents, their APIs, and capabilities.
MCP Agents
Perform concrete tasks such as data retrieval, computation, analysis, or creative generation.
3. Phase 1 — Initialization and Tool Awareness
Before the user begins the session, the system initializes the environment and prepares the LLM with tool context.
Step-by-Step Process
Session Setup
The AI Client connects to the MCP Server and requests the list of available tools.
This typically occurs through a request such as mcp.listTools.
Registry Lookup
The MCP Server queries the MCP Registry to retrieve the current list of registered agents and their associated APIs.
Tool Manifest Creation
The MCP Server consolidates this information into a structured tool manifest, for example:
Tool Manifest Delivery to the LLM
The AI Client provides this manifest to Claude Sonnet by injecting it into the model’s system prompt.
This contextualizes the LLM so that it is aware of what functions it can invoke when reasoning over a user’s query.
At this point, Claude Sonnet has full contextual awareness of the available tools but has not yet received any user input.
4. Phase 2 — Query Handling and Task Execution
Once the initialization phase is complete, the user begins interacting with the system.
Example User Prompt
“Analyze the uploaded sales dataset and propose three marketing campaign ideas based on the findings.”
Step-by-Step Process
User Input (Step 1)
The User submits the query through the AI Client interface (e.g., a chat application or API endpoint).
Communication occurs over JSON-RPC.
Request Forwarding (Step 2)
The AI Client forwards the request to Claude Sonnet using gRPC or another high-performance protocol.
Task Planning (Step 3)Claude Sonnet interprets the user’s intent and decomposes it into logical subtasks.
For example:
Load and clean the dataset
Analyze trends in sales data
Generate marketing campaigns based on insights
Claude Sonnet then constructs a structured task plan and sends it to the MCP Server for execution.
Agent Discovery (Step 4–5)
The MCP Server queries the MCP Registry to identify which agents can fulfill the required subtasks.
The Registry returns metadata indicating the appropriate agents for each step.
Task Dispatching (Step 6)
The MCP Server routes each subtask to the corresponding MCP Agents:
Agent 1 → Data cleaning and loading
Agent 2 → Trend analysis
Agent 3 → Campaign generation
Agent Execution (Step 7)
Each agent executes its assigned task.
Some agents may require further reasoning or creativity, in which case they communicate with a specialist LLM such as Gemini-Pro to assist in reasoning or idea generation.
For example:
Agent 2 (Trend Analyzer) → Queries Gemini-Pro to interpret subtle data patterns.
Agent 3 (Campaign Generator) → Uses Gemini-Pro for creative idea generation.
Result Return (Step 8)
Each agent sends its results back to the MCP Server once the task is complete.
Results are transmitted in structured JSON format, following the schema defined in the original manifest.
5. Phase 3 — Aggregation and Response
Once all agents have returned their results, the system proceeds to combine, interpret, and deliver the final output.
Step-by-Step Process
Result Aggregation (Step 9)
The MCP Server aggregates the results received from all agents and returns them to Claude Sonnet for synthesis.
Result Synthesis (Step 10)Claude Sonnet combines the structured outputs into a coherent, human-readable summary.
It may apply reasoning, narrative formatting, and cross-task interpretation.
Response Delivery (Step 11)
The synthesized response is sent back to the AI Client, which formats it appropriately (e.g., markdown, HTML, or structured JSON) and presents it to the User.
6. End-to-End Sequence Diagram
The following sequence diagram shows the full flow from initialization to response.
sequenceDiagram
participant U as User
participant Client as AI Client
participant Claude as Claude Sonnet (LLM-Core)
participant MCP as MCP Server
participant Reg as MCP Registry
participant A1 as Agent 1 (Data Cleaner)
participant A2 as Agent 2 (Trend Analyzer)
participant A3 as Agent 3 (Campaign Generator)
participant Gemini as Gemini-Pro (Specialist LLM)
%% Initialization
Client->>MCP: ① Request available tools (mcp.listTools)
MCP->>Reg: ② Query registry for agents
Reg-->>MCP: ③ Return tool metadata
MCP-->>Client: ④ Send tool manifest
Client-->>Claude: ⑤ Inject tool context into system prompt
%% Query and Execution
U->>Client: ⑥ User query: "Analyze sales data and propose campaigns"
Client->>Claude: ⑦ Forward query (gRPC)
Claude->>MCP: ⑧ Send structured task plan (load → analyze → generate)
MCP->>Reg: ⑨ Lookup agents for plan
Reg-->>MCP: ⑩ Return agent list
MCP->>A1: ⑪ Dispatch data processing
MCP->>A2: ⑫ Dispatch trend analysis
MCP->>A3: ⑬ Dispatch campaign ideation
A2->>Gemini: ⑭ Request reasoning help
Gemini-->>A2: ⑮ Return analytical insights
A3->>Gemini: ⑯ Request creative suggestions
Gemini-->>A3: ⑰ Return campaign ideas
A1-->>MCP: ⑱ Return cleaned data
A2-->>MCP: ⑲ Return trend insights
A3-->>MCP: ⑳ Return campaign concepts
MCP-->>Claude: ㉑ Aggregate and send all results
Claude-->>Client: ㉒ Final summary and synthesis
Client-->>U: ㉓ Display result to user
Loading
7. Example User Experience
Final Output Presented to the User:
Sales increased by 12% in the Eastern region.
Product Line B showed a 7% decline due to market saturation.
Recommended Campaigns (via Gemini-Pro):
“East Revival” loyalty drive
“Switch & Save” cross-product bundle
“Green Relaunch” eco-theme promotion
8. Summary
In this end-to-end workflow:
The MCP Server and MCP Registry establish tool awareness before any user interaction.
The User initiates the request, which is interpreted by Claude Sonnet, the LLM serving as the planner.
Claude Sonnet generates a structured execution plan.
The MCP Server executes that plan by dispatching subtasks to the relevant MCP Agents.
Certain agents interact with a specialist LLM (Gemini-Pro) for reasoning or creativity.
All results are aggregated, synthesized, and presented back to the User in natural language.
This design creates a seamless collaboration between reasoning models and operational agents—combining intelligence, extensibility, and execution reliability within a unified architecture.
Would you like the next section written in the same style, covering Tool Invocation and Result Formatting, showing how Claude actually calls the tools using MCP messages (including JSON-RPC examples)?
prompt
why Agent Discovery (Step 4–5) need to happen again? did not the mcp server query the mcp registry in the intialization process itself ?
Excellent observation — this is a very insightful and subtle question, and it gets right to the heart of how MCP’s discovery vs. routing responsibilities differ.
You’re absolutely right that the MCP Server already queries the MCP Registry during initialization to retrieve tool metadata (the tool manifest) and share that with the LLM (e.g., Claude Sonnet).
So, why does “Agent Discovery” appear again later in the execution flow?
Let’s go step-by-step, in a textbook-style clarification.
Why Agent Discovery Happens Again During Execution
1. Two Distinct Meanings of “Discovery”
The confusion arises because the term discovery can refer to two different processes in the MCP lifecycle:
Discovery Type
Purpose
When It Happens
Who Uses It
Outcome
Capability Discovery
To tell the LLM what tools exist and how to use them.
During initialization (pre-session)
LLM & AI Client
Builds awareness and reasoning context (tool manifest).
Execution-Time Resolution
To let the MCP Server decide which live agent instances to route a task to.
During execution (runtime)
MCP Server
Locates active agents, endpoints, or versions for actual task dispatch.
So even though the types of tools are known early on (e.g., “trend_analyzer” exists), the specific instance or endpoint that should execute the task may not be determined until later.
2. The Initialization Query vs. Execution-Time Lookup
Let’s break this down:
(A) Initialization-Time Query (Pre-Session)
Purpose:
Retrieve metadata about available tools for the LLM to reason about.
Data Type:
Tool manifests (e.g., names, input/output schemas, short descriptions).
User:
The LLM, so it can plan intelligently.
Example Result:
{
"tool_id": "trend_analyzer",
"description": "Analyzes tabular data for patterns.",
"inputs": {"type": "table"},
"outputs": {"type": "trend_report"}
}
Outcome:
Claude Sonnet knows that a “trend_analyzer” tool exists, and what it expects as input/output.
At this stage, no agents are actually invoked or bound.
This is just declarative information — like a table of contents.
(B) Execution-Time Query (Runtime Routing)
Purpose:
Determine which concrete agent instance or endpoint should run the tool call.
Data Type:
Live registry entries, possibly filtered by health, region, version, or load.
User:
The MCP Server, which must dispatch actual execution requests.
Outcome:
The MCP Server now knows exactly where to send the execution call.
This ensures that even if multiple “trend_analyzer” agents exist — say, one optimized for streaming data, another for static files — the right one is chosen dynamically at runtime.
3. Why This Separation Matters
This separation is critical for scalability, fault tolerance, and up-to-date execution routing.
Here’s why:
Concern
If Only Initialization Was Used
Why Runtime Discovery Helps
Agent Availability
Agents might go offline or come online after initialization.
Runtime discovery ensures only active agents are used.
Load Balancing
Static manifest doesn’t reflect cluster health.
Runtime queries can route to the least-loaded instance.
Versioning
LLM’s manifest might describe “trend_analyzer v1”, but v2 may now exist.
MCP Server can dynamically bind to the correct version.
Session Duration
Sessions may last hours; system state changes during that time.
Runtime lookup ensures up-to-date mapping.
So, Claude Sonnet needs to know what kinds of tools exist,
but the MCP Server needs to know where and how to invoke them at any given moment.
4. Analogy: The “Library vs. Librarian” Model
Think of this distinction like a library:
During initialization, Claude learns the catalog — all the books (tools) that exist and what topics they cover.
During execution, the MCP Server acts like the librarian, finding the specific physical copy of the book (agent instance) on the shelf that’s currently available to borrow.
The catalog gives Claude planning intelligence.
The librarian gives the system operational reliability.
5. When Runtime Agent Discovery Can Be Skipped
In tightly controlled or small-scale environments, the MCP Server may cache or persist agent bindings after the initialization phase.
In those cases, the second discovery may not be required unless:
A tool call fails, triggering fallback lookup; or
The session involves long-running orchestration with dynamic scaling.
So the step may be optimized away, but the architecture still defines it to preserve robustness in distributed or multi-instance deployments.
Steps 4–5 (Runtime Agent Discovery) → Let the MCP Server perform live resolution before dispatching actual work.
That’s why both are valid and necessary in the architecture —
they serve different roles for different actors, even though they both involve “discovery.”
Would you like me to update the earlier sequence diagram to clearly show this distinction — labeling the first discovery as Capability Discovery and the later one as Runtime Resolution — so it’s visually obvious where and why they differ?
OK, thanks! now combine the above and rewrite the complete end to end workflow. Also at the end of that, write a prompt that would generate this level of detailed output with architecture and ladder flow charts using mermaid or svg.
Perfect — let’s combine everything into a single, textbook-style explanation of the complete end-to-end workflow, including all clarifications about initialization, runtime agent discovery, LLM reasoning, and multi-agent orchestration. At the end, I’ll provide a detailed prompt you could use to generate this type of output automatically, including mermaid diagrams.
Chapter: Complete End-to-End Workflow in an MCP-Based LLM System
1. Introduction
A Model Context Protocol (MCP)–enabled AI system integrates a user-facing LLM (e.g., Claude Sonnet) with a network of specialized agents, orchestrated by the MCP Server and registered in the MCP Registry.
The architecture separates reasoning from execution, allowing the system to handle complex user requests reliably, flexibly, and scalably.
The workflow can be divided into three phases:
Initialization Phase: Prepare the system, make tools known to the LLM.
Execution Phase: Interpret user query, plan tasks, and dispatch subtasks.
Aggregation & Response Phase: Collect agent results, synthesize output, and return it to the user.
2. System Components
Component
Role
User
Originates the query in natural language.
AI Client
Bridges user input with the LLM and MCP Server; manages session communication.
Claude Sonnet (LLM-Core)
Serves as planner and reasoning agent, decomposing complex queries into tasks.
MCP Server
Orchestrates execution, dispatches tasks, routes results, interacts with the registry.
MCP Registry
Stores metadata about registered agents and tools.
MCP Agents
Specialized executors performing subtasks. Some may interact with additional LLMs for reasoning or creativity (e.g., Gemini-Pro).
3. Phase 1 — Initialization and Capability Discovery
Before user interaction, the system ensures the LLM is aware of available tools.
Step-by-Step Process
Client → MCP Server: Request available tools (mcp.listTools).
MCP Server → MCP Registry: Query for all registered agents and their capabilities.
Client → LLM (Claude Sonnet): Injects tool manifest into the system prompt.
Outcome: Claude Sonnet now knows what tools exist and what their inputs/outputs are — the Capability Discovery stage.
Note: No agents are invoked yet; this is purely declarative.
4. Phase 2 — Query Handling and Task Execution
Example User Query
“Analyze the uploaded sales dataset and propose three marketing campaign ideas based on the findings.”
Step-by-Step Process
User → Client: Submit query.
Client → Claude Sonnet: Forward the query for reasoning.
Claude Sonnet → MCP Server: Returns a structured task plan, e.g.:
Load and clean dataset
Analyze trends
Generate marketing campaigns
MCP Server → MCP Registry: Perform Runtime Agent Resolution — locate active agent instances for each subtask.
Registry → MCP Server: Return live agent endpoints.
This clearly shows how both pre-session discovery and runtime resolution coexist in a robust system.
9. Prompt to Generate This Workflow with Architecture and Flow Charts
Here’s an example prompt you could feed to an LLM (e.g., ChatGPT or Claude) to generate textbook-style explanations with mermaid diagrams:
Generate a detailed end-to-end workflow of an MCP-based AI system, including:
1. All system components and their roles (User, AI Client, LLM, MCP Server, MCP Registry, MCP Agents, Specialist LLMs).
2. A user query example, showing how the LLM plans tasks, agents execute them, and results are synthesized.
3. Distinction between Initialization (Capability Discovery) and Runtime Agent Resolution.
4. Step-by-step numbered sequence of interactions from user query to final response.
5. A mermaid sequence diagram showing all communication paths, agent-to-agent interactions, and LLM involvement.
6. Annotated steps such as query, lookup, discovery, execution, aggregation, and response.
7. Include a textual explanation of why both pre-session discovery and runtime resolution are needed.
8. Optionally, also include a ladder chart style or timeline of events with numbered arrows.
9. Format output like a textbook chapter: Introduction, Components, Phases, Sequence, Summary.
Provide output in Markdown suitable for documentation.
If you want, I can **also generate a full mermaid architecture diagram (not just the sequence) showing component roles, protocols, and agent-LLM connections, to complement the sequence chart. This would make a complete visual representation of the system.
Yes — technically, the MCP Server and the AI Clientcan be the same process or machine, but whether they should be depends on the architecture goals and deployment scale. Let’s break it down clearly.
1. Functional Distinction
Component
Role
AI Client
Bridges the user and the LLM/MCP system. Manages sessions, handles prompts, collects results. Can inject tool manifests into the LLM context.
MCP Server
Orchestrates tasks: routes subtasks to agents, resolves live endpoints from the registry, aggregates results. Handles runtime execution.
So conceptually, they serve different purposes:
Client → front-end / user interaction / LLM interface
Server → backend orchestration / execution management
2. When They Can Be Combined
Small-scale or single-user deployments:
If you only have one LLM and a few agents, combining the Client and MCP Server into a single process simplifies deployment.
Reduced network overhead:
Communication between Client and Server doesn’t need RPC or gRPC calls if they are co-located.
Single-machine testing or demos:
Makes it easier to experiment with prompts, agent orchestration, and runtime execution.
Distributed or cloud-scale deployments:
Multiple users, long-running sessions, or geographically distributed agents benefit from a separate Client layer to manage sessions and an MCP Server to orchestrate agents reliably.
Security or multi-tenancy:
Client may run in a user-accessible environment, while the MCP Server runs in a trusted backend to control agent execution.
Scalability:
Server can scale horizontally, orchestrating many clients concurrently, without duplicating the orchestration logic in each client.
4. Practical Consideration
Even when combined:
The logical roles should remain distinct in the software architecture.
The system should still perform initialization (capability discovery) and runtime agent resolution in the same sequence.
For logging, monitoring, and fault tolerance, it can help to maintain a clear separation of responsibilities internally, even within the same process.
✅ Summary:
Yes, they can be the same for small or testing scenarios.
Separation is recommended for production, distributed, or multi-user deployments.
If you want, I can update the earlier mermaid diagrams to show a combined Client+MCP Server version, showing how the flow changes slightly but all phases (initialization, execution, aggregation) remain intact. Do you want me to do that?
In the prompt generation, add the actual use case to the prompt to be generated as output
Generate a detailed end-to-end workflow of an MCP-based AI system, including:
1. All system components and their roles (User, AI Client, LLM, MCP Server, MCP Registry, MCP Agents, Specialist LLMs).
2. A user query example, showing how the LLM plans tasks, agents execute them, and results are synthesized.
3. Distinction between Initialization (Capability Discovery) and Runtime Agent Resolution.
4. Step-by-step numbered sequence of interactions from user query to final response.
5. A mermaid sequence diagram showing all communication paths, agent-to-agent interactions, and LLM involvement.
6. Annotated steps such as query, lookup, discovery, execution, aggregation, and response.
7. Include a textual explanation of why both pre-session discovery and runtime resolution are needed.
8. Optionally, also include a ladder chart style or timeline of events with numbered arrows.
9. Format output like a textbook chapter: Introduction, Components, Phases, Sequence, Summary.
Provide output in Markdown suitable for documentation.
Here’s an updated version of your prompt with the actual use case included. This will make the generated output more concrete and actionable:
Prompt:
Generate a detailed end-to-end workflow of an MCP-based AI system using the following example use case:
User Query: "Analyze the uploaded sales dataset and propose three marketing campaign ideas based on the findings."
The workflow should include:
1. All system components and their roles (User, AI Client, LLM, MCP Server, MCP Registry, MCP Agents, Specialist LLMs).
2. How the user query is handled: LLM planning, agents executing subtasks, and results being synthesized.
3. Distinction between Initialization (Capability Discovery) and Runtime Agent Resolution.
4. Step-by-step numbered sequence of interactions from the user query to the final response.
5. A mermaid sequence diagram showing all communication paths, agent-to-agent interactions, and LLM involvement.
6. Annotated steps such as query, lookup, discovery, execution, aggregation, and response.
7. A textual explanation of why both pre-session discovery and runtime resolution are needed.
8. Optionally, a ladder chart style or timeline of events with numbered arrows.
9. Format the output like a textbook chapter, with sections: Introduction, Components, Phases, Sequence, and Summary.
10. Show example results at each stage, including intermediate agent outputs and the final synthesized response.
Provide output in Markdown suitable for documentation.
This ensures the output will include the actual use case, show real steps, and illustrate how agents (with or without LLM assistance) are orchestrated from query to response.
If you want, I can also write a fully worked-out Markdown example output for this prompt, including sequence diagram, ladder chart, and sample results, ready to use in documentation. Do you want me to do that?