MCP + OPS: Standardizing and Reusing Prompt Context for Better Agent Interoperability”

[OPS-Fundation]

Pre-submission Checklist

• I have verified that this discussion would not be more appropriate as an issue in a specific repository
• I have searched existing discussions to avoid duplicates

Discussion Topic

Summary

MCP provides a standardized channel for communication between models, tools, and agents.
However, MCP intentionally does not define how context and prompts should be structured, reused, or optimized.

OPS (Open Prompt Specification) complements MCP by addressing this missing layer.

In short:

• MCP = transport and protocol
• OPS = optimized, reusable, and standardized context

Together, they form a complete interoperability stack.

---

What problem OPS addresses

Today, most prompt engineering suffers from:

• Ad-hoc, non-reusable prompt structures
• Context duplication across agents and tools
• No formal way to version, optimize, or compose prompts
• Tight coupling between prompt logic and implementation

MCP solves how messages travel.
OPS solves what those messages are.

---

What is OPS (Open Prompt Specification)

OPS is an open specification designed to:

• Standardize prompt structure and intent
• Enable prompt reuse across agents, tools, and organizations
• Optimize context composition and delivery
• Allow versioning, modularity, and composability of prompts

OPS treats prompts as first-class, reusable artifacts, not inline strings.

Reference:
👉 https://op-foundation.org/en/

---

Why MCP + OPS fit naturally together

MCP enables:

• A shared protocol
• Tool and agent interoperability
• Clear message exchange semantics

OPS adds:

• Structured context definition
• Reusable prompt components
• Optimized and minimal context delivery
• A shared semantic layer for prompts

MCP without OPS still works, but every agent reinvents prompts.
OPS without MCP lacks a standardized delivery channel.

Together, they close the loop.

---

Example mental model

• MCP = HTTP
• OPS = JSON / OpenAPI (but for prompts and context)

Both are needed for real interoperability.

---

Open questions for the community

1. Would MCP benefit from referencing or supporting a standard prompt/context specification?
2. Should OPS-like concepts live as:
   • an external complementary spec?
   • a recommended pattern?
   • or a future MCP extension?
3. Are there similar efforts already aligned with this direction?

I’d love feedback from MCP maintainers and contributors.

---

Next steps

If there is interest, I’m happy to:

• Share concrete OPS schemas
• Provide MCP-compatible examples
• Explore a reference implementation or RFC-style proposal

[Macbenach]

MCP defines how context, messages, and tool interactions are transported between models and systems — essentially the protocol layer.

However, MCP intentionally does not standardize how prompts and contextual instructions are structured, composed, or reused. That gap is exactly where OPS (Open Prompt Specification) fits.

OPS provides a structured, reusable, and implementation-agnostic way to define prompts and context so they can be shared consistently across agents, tools, and runtimes without ad-hoc prompt engineering.

Together, MCP + OPS form a more complete interoperability stack: MCP enables standardized communication, and OPS enables consistent, modular, and maintainable prompt definitions on top of it.