Hot Take: Most MCP Implementations Are Choosing the Wrong Transport Layer

I've been working with MCPs for months now, and I keep seeing the same pattern: developers pick HTTP because "it's what I know," then wonder why their AI feels sluggish compared to desktop apps using stdio.

Can we talk about this? Because I think we're making some fundamental mistakes in how we think about MCP transport performance.

The Problem I Keep Seeing

Every week, I see posts like:

"Why is my MCP integration so slow?"
"Claude Desktop feels faster than my web app"
"HTTP MCP calls are taking 300ms+"

And when I dig into their implementations, it's almost always the same issue: they're using HTTP for everything because it's familiar, but they're building conversational AI that needs persistent, low-latency connections.

Am I wrong here? Are you seeing different patterns?

The Transport Layer Mental Model Issue

Here's what I think is happening: we're applying web API thinking to AI integration, but MCPs are fundamentally different from REST APIs.

Traditional API: One request, one response, done.

MCP workflow: Chain of related operations that build on each other.

When your AI needs to:

• List files in a directory
• Read specific files based on the listing
• Process and update those files
• Confirm the changes

That's four round trips over HTTP. Four connection handshakes. Four sets of headers. Four opportunities for latency to compound.

With WebSockets or stdio, it's four messages over one persistent channel.

Does this match your experience? Or am I overthinking the performance impact?

The stdio Development Trap

This is the one that really bugs me. I see developers building amazing prototypes with stdio MCP servers:

bash

# Development
mcp-client --stdio ./my-awesome-server.js
# Response time: 15ms, feels instant

Then they need to deploy it:

javascript

// Production
const client = new MCPClient('https://my-server.com/mcp');
//
Same operation now takes 200ms+

Suddenly their snappy AI feels sluggish, and they're scrambling to rewrite connection handling, add retry logic, implement proper error handling...

Has anyone else fallen into this trap? How did you handle the transition?

WebSockets: Underrated or Overcomplicated?

I'm convinced WebSockets are the sweet spot for most MCP applications, but I rarely see them discussed. Everyone jumps straight from stdio (development) to HTTP (production).

WebSockets give you:

• Persistent connections (like stdio)
• Network deployment (like HTTP)
• Real-time bidirectional communication
• Lower per-message overhead

But the complexity scares people off. Connection management, reconnection logic, load balancer configuration...

For those using WebSockets with MCPs: Was the complexity worth it? What gotchas did you hit?

For those avoiding WebSockets: What's holding you back? The implementation complexity, or something else?

The Performance Numbers Nobody Talks About
Here's what I've measured in my own testing (local MacBook Pro, basic MCP server):

stdio: 10-20ms per operation
WebSockets: 30-50ms per operation
HTTP (keep-alive): 80-120ms per operation
HTTP (new connection): 150-300ms per operation
These differences compound. A 5-operation workflow:

• stdio: ~75ms total
• WebSockets: ~200ms total
• HTTP: 400-1500ms total

Are you seeing similar numbers? Different patterns in different environments?

The Real Question: Does It Matter?

Maybe I'm obsessing over performance that doesn't matter in practice.

If your AI workflows are mostly:

• Single operations
• Background processing
• Non-interactive batch jobs

Then HTTP overhead might be irrelevant.

But if you're building:

• Conversational AI interfaces
• Real-time collaboration tools
• Interactive development environments

Then transport choice seems critical.

What type of MCP applications are you building? Does transport performance impact your user experience?

What Am I Missing?

I feel like I'm missing something in this discussion. The MCP spec supports all these transports, but most tutorials and examples default to HTTP. The performance characteristics seem to heavily favor persistent connections, but WebSocket adoption seems low.
Why do you think that is?

Are there WebSocket downsides I'm not considering? HTTP advantages I'm undervaluing? Different use cases where my assumptions break down?

My Current Take

• For what it's worth, here's how I'm thinking about transport choice now:
• stdio: Development, desktop apps, maximum performance for single-user scenarios
• WebSockets: Web apps, conversational AI, anything user-facing and interactive
• HTTP: Background processing, webhook-style integrations, simple request-response patterns

Does this framework make sense to you? Where would you choose differently?

I'm genuinely curious about everyone's experiences here. What transport are you using for your MCP implementations? Have you benchmarked the differences? What factors drove your decision?

And if you've switched transport layers mid-project - what prompted the change and how painful was it?

Let's figure out if we're collectively making good choices here, or if there are better patterns we should be sharing.