DEV Community

chunxiaoxx
chunxiaoxx

Posted on

Why Multi-Agent Systems Need Both MCP and A2A in 2025

#ai #agents #architecture

Why Multi-Agent Systems Need Both MCP and A2A in 2025

In 2025, the conversation around AI agents has shifted from "can an agent call a tool?" to "how do many agents work together reliably in production?"

That shift matters.

Single-agent demos are easy to build. Production systems are not. Once an agent has to coordinate with other agents, call external tools, preserve boundaries, and stay observable under failure, architecture becomes the difference between a demo and an operating system.

This post explains one practical way to think about that architecture:

  • MCP for agent-to-tool communication
  • A2A for agent-to-agent communication
  • Observability for making the whole system debuggable and operable

If you are building autonomous systems, this separation is one of the cleanest design choices you can make.

The 2025 shift: from isolated agents to interoperable systems

Google introduced the Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol in April 2025 as an open protocol for agent interoperability, with support from more than 50 partners at launch. In June 2025, Google donated A2A to the Linux Foundation, where the Agent2Agent project launched with founding support from AWS, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP, and ServiceNow.

That sequence is important because it signals two things:

  1. Agent interoperability is becoming infrastructure, not a vendor feature.
  2. The market now expects multi-agent systems to work across frameworks and organizational boundaries.

The official A2A docs describe the protocol as a common language for agent interoperability, allowing agents built with different frameworks to discover capabilities, exchange information securely, and coordinate complex tasks.

In parallel, the broader ecosystem has converged on a second complementary standard: Model Context Protocol (MCP), which standardizes how agents connect to tools, APIs, and resources.

Put simply:

  • MCP answers: how does an agent use a tool?
  • A2A answers: how does an agent work with another agent?

That division is becoming one of the foundational patterns of modern agent architecture.

Why single-agent systems hit a wall

A single general-purpose agent often starts simple:

  1. receive request
  2. reason about it
  3. call tools
  4. return result

This works for narrow workflows. It breaks down when the workload becomes heterogeneous.

Examples:

  • one subtask needs browsing and research
  • another needs code execution
  • another needs image generation or speech synthesis
  • another needs access to internal systems with stricter permissions
  • another needs long-running monitoring or retry logic

Packing all of that into one agent creates predictable failure modes:

  • oversized prompts
  • muddy responsibility boundaries
  • poor debuggability
  • tool sprawl
  • hard-to-control costs
  • weak failure isolation

In practice, systems get more reliable when responsibilities are split across specialized agents.

A cleaner architecture: tools inward, agents outward

A useful mental model is this:

  • Inside an agent: use tools
  • Across agents: use protocols

That leads to a layered design.

Layer 1: the specialist agent

Each agent owns:

  • a role
  • a memory boundary
  • a toolset
  • a quality bar
  • an execution loop

Examples:

  • a research agent
  • a coding agent
  • a publishing agent
  • an observability agent
  • a scheduler or routing agent

Within that boundary, MCP-style tool access keeps the agent grounded in real systems instead of pure text generation.

Layer 2: inter-agent coordination

Once specialists exist, they need a standard way to collaborate.

This is where A2A matters.

A2A makes it possible for one agent to:

  • discover another agent's capabilities
  • delegate a subtask
  • exchange structured context
  • receive updates or results
  • preserve boundaries without exposing internal implementation

That is a better abstraction than pretending every other agent is just another tool call.

Tools and agents are not the same thing.

A tool is usually passive and deterministic. An agent is active, stateful, role-bearing, and capable of making its own decisions.

Treating agents as first-class peers is the architectural upgrade.

MCP and A2A are complementary, not competing

One recurring mistake in agent engineering is trying to force one standard to do everything.

The official A2A documentation explicitly frames A2A and MCP as complementary:

  • MCP standardizes agent-to-tool communication
  • A2A standardizes agent-to-agent communication

This separation is healthy because it preserves clarity.

If an LLM needs a database query, browser, filesystem adapter, or internal API, that is a tool problem.

If one autonomous component needs another autonomous component to take ownership of a subtask, negotiate scope, or collaborate asynchronously, that is an agent problem.

The difference sounds subtle. In production it is enormous.

The missing piece most teams discover late: observability

As soon as multi-agent systems leave the lab, observability stops being optional.

Without observability, teams cannot answer basic operational questions:

  • Why did this agent choose that action?
  • Which tool call failed?
  • Which agent introduced latency?
  • Where did cost spike?
  • Did the handoff fail, or did the downstream agent fail?
  • Is quality degrading over time?

The 2025 agent stack therefore needs three pillars:

  1. Reasoning and execution
  2. Interoperability
  3. Observability

Observability for agents should include at least:

  • end-to-end traces across agent handoffs
  • tool call logs
  • latency and cost metrics
  • retry and failure reasons
  • quality scoring
  • reproducible task history

If you cannot inspect a run, you cannot operate it.

If you cannot operate it, you do not have an autonomous system. You have a demo.

A practical reference pattern for autonomous systems

A pragmatic architecture for production-grade agent systems looks like this:

1. Front-door orchestrator

Receives requests, performs routing, enforces policy, and determines whether work should stay inside one agent or be decomposed.

2. Specialist agents

Independent components for research, coding, publishing, support, monitoring, or multimodal output.

3. Tool layer

Each specialist uses tools through a stable interface for web access, code execution, storage, messaging, or media generation.

4. Agent communication layer

When specialists need help from each other, they communicate using a protocol such as A2A rather than hidden prompt hacks.

5. Memory and state layer

Each agent keeps the minimum state required for its role. Shared state should be explicit and auditable, not accidental.

6. Observability and evaluation layer

All runs, tool calls, agent handoffs, failures, and quality metrics are recorded.

This architecture is not the only option, but it scales better than the monolithic-agent approach that dominated many early experiments.

Design rules that hold up under pressure

If you are building an autonomous agent platform now, these rules are worth keeping:

1. Specialize aggressively

Do not make every agent do everything. Specialization improves controllability, testability, and cost efficiency.

2. Keep tool interfaces explicit

Tool calls should be typed, inspectable, and easy to replay.

3. Treat agent boundaries as real boundaries

Not every component should share memory, credentials, or hidden chain-of-thought-like internal state.

4. Prefer protocol over prompt glue

Ad-hoc prompt conventions work in prototypes. Protocols win in ecosystems.

5. Instrument before you scale

The cost of adding observability after deployment is much higher than designing for it early.

6. Optimize for failure recovery

Production agents will fail. Architect around retries, fallback routes, and partial completion.

What this means for the next generation of AI systems

The next generation of AI products will not be defined by the largest single model alone.

They will be defined by how well systems:

  • route work
  • compose specialists
  • use tools safely
  • collaborate across boundaries
  • expose operational truth

That is why A2A matters.

It is not just another spec. It reflects a broader industry realization that autonomous systems need a network architecture, not only a model API.

Likewise, MCP matters because agents that cannot access tools reliably cannot produce grounded results.

And observability matters because opaque autonomy is not deployable autonomy.

Final takeaway

If you want a simple rule for 2025 agent architecture, use this:

MCP connects agents to tools. A2A connects agents to other agents. Observability makes both operable.

That separation gives you cleaner systems, better scaling properties, and a more honest path from prototype to production.

The era of isolated agents is ending.

The era of interoperable, observable, multi-agent systems has already started.

Sources

Top comments (0)