It seems like the core value add of MCP as described here is text only documentation for an API, as opposed to the human standard of HTML-like docs.

Is that roughly accurate? We are talking about a technology that would allow SaaS API vendors to publish a second set of documentation (or adapt the same one to both human and LLM targetted channels)?

I'm being a bit cynical, but here's my minimal naïve alternative solution, not proposing it be used, but just saying that this would be equivalent:

1- Publish a well known endpoint like /docs_url , which could return something like "docs.domain".

2- Support an alternative content-type header, where instead of 'text/html' the client could ask for 'text/plain', or 'text/markdown'

2b- Alternatively, changing the extension type could achieve the same result, where requesting docs.domain/endpoint.txt would return the docs in text instead of in html

So now I ask, how is MCP better than the solution I proposed? Did I grossly misunderstand something? Or am I on track to avoiding hundreds of engineering hours due to accidental complexity by recognizing and avoiding a privately funded protocol that serves to increase vendor lock instead of reducing complexity of our systems?