面试题库

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这题有一个标准的错误答案，面试官就是靠它筛人：把 MCP 说成「function calling 的升级版」「以后不用写 function calling 了」。说出这句，后面讲得再多也已经扣完分了。
2. 把两者放回各自的链路上就不会混：function calling 是「模型 ↔ 你的程序」之间的约定，MCP 是「你的程序 ↔ 能力提供方」之间的约定。它们不在同一段线上，所以是上下游，不是替代。
3. 给一个能一句话验证的证据：MCP server 通过 tools/list 返回的每个工具，它的 inputSchema 本身就是 JSON Schema，你要做的只是把它搬进 function calling 的 parameters 字段发给模型。模型自始至终不知道 MCP 存在。接了 MCP 之后 function calling 那段代码一行都不会少。
4. 再答「解决了什么问题」：接入成本从乘法变加法。N 个宿主乘 M 个能力等于 N 乘 M 份接入代码，有了协议就变成 N 加 M；顺带把责任边界划清楚了，第三方能力出问题不用先在你的服务里复现。
5. 顺手把 Skills 也区分掉，这是很自然的追问：MCP 扩展的是「能做什么」（新增可调用的动作），Skills 扩展的是「怎么做得好」（一组提示词、脚本和参考资料打成的按需加载包）。一个给能力，一个给方法论。
6. 可以预期的追问：那 MCP 的价值到底在哪？答案是它把「能力的发现与调用」标准化了，所以能力可以由别人维护、被多个宿主复用、不改代码就增删——但发给模型的那一段，永远还是 function calling。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. This question has a canonical wrong answer that interviewers screen on: calling MCP 'function calling v2' or saying you no longer need function calling. Say that and the rest of your answer cannot recover the points.
2. Put each one back on its own hop and the confusion disappears: function calling is the contract between the model and your program; MCP is the contract between your program and a capability provider. Different hops, so they stack — they do not replace each other.
3. Offer a one-line proof: every tool returned by an MCP server's tools/list carries an inputSchema that is already plain JSON Schema, and all you do is copy it into the parameters field of a function-calling tool definition. The model never learns MCP exists, and adopting MCP removes not a single line of your function-calling code.
4. Then answer what it actually solves: integration cost goes from multiplication to addition. N hosts times M capabilities means N times M integrations; a shared protocol makes it N plus M. It also draws a responsibility boundary — a third-party capability failing is no longer something you must first reproduce inside your own service.
5. Volunteer the Skills distinction, since it is the natural follow-up: MCP extends what the agent can do (new callable actions), Skills extend how well it does it (a bundle of prompt, scripts and reference material, loaded on demand). One adds capability, the other adds method.
6. Expect the follow-up: then where is MCP's value? In standardizing discovery and invocation, so capabilities can be owned by another team, reused by several hosts, and added or removed without a code change — while the hop to the model stays function calling.

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这题看着是背概念，实际区分度在两个小地方：一是能不能把宿主和 client 分开说，二是知不知道 tools 之外还有别的原语。只答「server 提供工具、client 调用工具」是及格线以下。
2. 先把三个角色摆清楚：server 是能力提供方，一个独立进程；client 是宿主里负责跟某一个 server 说话的那一小块，一个 client 只连一个 server；宿主是你的 Agent 应用，它同时持有多个 client。很多人把宿主和 client 当成一个东西，一问「连三个 server 怎么办」就露馅。
3. server 侧三种原语要一起说，并且要说清谁来选：tools 是可执行的动作，由模型来挑；resources 是按 URI 读的只读数据；prompts 是可复用的提示词模板，后两者通常由用户或宿主来挑。这句「谁来选」比原语名字本身更能体现你真读过协议——把一份大文档做成 resource 而不是 tool，等于把花不花这笔 token 的决定权从模型手里收回给人。
4. client 侧也能声明能力让 server 反过来请求宿主：sampling 是让宿主跑一次模型补全，roots 是告诉 server 哪些目录可见，elicitation 是请宿主向用户要一条输入。知道有这三样、不展开，分寸刚好。
5. 传输两种：stdio 用于本地子进程，Streamable HTTP 用于远程。这里有个时间戳式的加分点——旧的 HTTP 加 SSE 双端点传输已经被标为 legacy，只为兼容老客户端保留；把它当现行方案讲，等于告诉对方你看的是去年的文章。
6. 可以预期的追问：stdio server 有什么特别要注意的？答 stdout 被 JSON-RPC 独占，所有日志必须走 stderr，否则 client 会收到解析不了的消息；另外子进程的生命周期归宿主管，退出时要杀掉，不然留一堆孤儿进程。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. This looks like recall, but it discriminates on two small things: whether you separate host from client, and whether you know there are primitives beyond tools. 'Server provides tools, client calls them' is below the bar.
2. Lay out three roles: the server is the capability provider and its own process; the client is the piece inside the host that talks to exactly one server; the host is your agent application, holding several clients at once. People who conflate host and client fall apart the moment you ask how they would connect to three servers.
3. Cover all three server-side primitives and say who chooses each: tools are executable actions chosen by the model; resources are read-only data addressed by URI; prompts are reusable templates — the latter two are normally chosen by the user or host. That 'who chooses' framing shows you actually read the spec: modelling a large document as a resource rather than a tool moves the decision to spend those tokens from the model back to a human.
4. The client side declares capabilities too, letting the server call back into the host: sampling asks the host to run a model completion, roots tells the server which directories are visible, elicitation asks the host to collect user input. Naming them without elaborating is the right level of detail.
5. Two transports: stdio for a local subprocess, Streamable HTTP for remote. The dated detail worth knowing is that the older two-endpoint HTTP+SSE transport is now legacy, kept only for backwards compatibility — presenting it as current signals you read last year's blog posts.
6. Expect the follow-up: anything special about stdio servers? Stdout is reserved for JSON-RPC, so every log line must go to stderr or the client receives unparseable messages; and the host owns the subprocess lifecycle, so it must reap the child on exit or leave orphans behind.

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 题眼在后半句。只会说「MCP 更标准更解耦」的人，等于说「微服务更解耦」——听起来对，但没有判据，面试官会立刻追问「那你们所有工具都做成 MCP server 了吗」。
2. 先给判据，而且要是可执行的三条：能力要被多个宿主复用、能力由另一个团队或第三方维护、需要不改宿主代码就能增删能力。命中任意一条才考虑，**一条都不命中就直接写本地函数**——把默认答案摆成「不上」，这条比三条判据本身更能体现工程判断。
3. 每条判据配一句为什么：多宿主复用把 N 乘 M 变成 N 加 M；别人维护时进程边界就是责任边界，他们改他们的、你不用发版；热插拔让加一个内部工具从一次发布降级成一次配置变更。
4. 然后老实说代价，这是区分「用过」和「读过」的地方：多一个进程要保活、多一次握手要处理超时与重连、排障链路从一段变三段——工具没被调用，现在可能是模型没选、可能是 schema 翻译时丢了字段、也可能是 server 压根没起来。stdio 的子进程还要你自己回收，否则留孤儿进程。
5. 还有一条容易被忽略但很加分：MCP 不改变你的成本结构。工具描述照样每轮都进上下文，工具多了照样会让模型选错——D5 那条「工具超过一定数量就该合并描述」在接了 MCP 之后一字不变，甚至更需要，因为现在别人可以往你的工具列表里塞东西。
6. 可以预期的追问：那内部工具一律不上 MCP 吗？不是。有一类值得例外——你希望它能被 IDE 里的助手和运维机器人一起用，那第一条判据就命中了，即使它是你自己维护的。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. The hinge is the second half. Answering only 'MCP is more standard and decoupled' is like saying 'microservices are more decoupled' — true-sounding but with no criterion, and the interviewer will immediately ask whether you turned every tool into an MCP server.
2. Give three actionable criteria: the capability must be reused by more than one host, owned by another team or a third party, or added and removed without changing host code. Any one of them justifies MCP; none of them means write a local function. Making 'no' the default answer shows more engineering judgment than the criteria themselves.
3. Attach a reason to each: multi-host reuse turns N times M into N plus M; external ownership makes the process boundary the responsibility boundary, so their change is not your release; hot-swapping demotes adding an internal tool from a deployment to a config change.
4. Then state the costs honestly, which is where shipped experience shows: another process to keep alive, another handshake with its own timeouts and reconnects, and a debugging path that went from one hop to three — a tool that never got called might mean the model did not pick it, the schema lost fields in translation, or the server never started. On stdio you also own reaping the child process.
5. One more point that is easy to miss and scores well: MCP does not change your cost structure. Tool descriptions still enter the context every turn, and more tools still degrade tool selection. The rule that you should consolidate tools past a certain count survives MCP unchanged — arguably it matters more, because now other people can add entries to your tool list.
6. Expect the follow-up: so internal tools never go through MCP? Not quite. If you want the same capability available to an IDE assistant and an ops bot as well, the first criterion is met even though you own the code.

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这题是把昨天的安全和今天的开放性叠在一起考，区分度极高：接 MCP 的全部好处，都建立在「能力由别人维护」这一点上，而这一点同时就是它最大的风险。
2. 第一层想清楚新增了什么信任假设：你把一段别人写的代码放进了自己的进程树，把它返回的文本直接喂给了模型，还允许它往你的工具列表里加条目。这三件事各自对应一类风险。
3. 第二层逐条给检查项。执行侧：server 是一个会跑起来的进程，要限制它能读哪些文件、能不能联网、超时多久、以什么身份运行，也就是昨天讲的最小权限和沙箱那一套。数据侧：**它的返回结果一律当不可信输入**，这正是昨天间接注入的固定现场——工具返回的备注字段里可以藏指令；所以工具结果不能当指令执行，权限闸门必须在你自己的进程里、在调用之前判。
4. 第三层是治理，最容易被漏掉：工具列表可以在运行中变化，server 发一条 listChanged 通知就能加一个新工具。所以你的白名单要按工具名固定，新出现的工具默认不进模型的工具列表，要有人点头；server 的版本要锁定，不能跟着上游 latest 漂。
5. 第四层是可用性与成本：这是一个新的外部依赖，它挂了你的 Agent 就少一批能力，所以要有超时、要有降级（工具不可用时告诉模型「这个能力暂时不可用」而不是整轮失败），要把它的调用计入你的可观测面板。这三条正好复用前面几周讲过的东西。
6. 可以预期的追问：怎么判断它值不值得接？答案回到那三条判据——如果这个能力只有你一个宿主用，而且你完全可以自己实现，那接一个第三方 server 承担的风险没有对应的收益。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. This stacks yesterday's security topic onto today's openness topic, and it discriminates hard: every benefit of MCP rests on the capability being maintained by someone else, and that is also its biggest risk.
2. First name the new trust assumptions: you put someone else's code into your own process tree, you feed its returned text straight into the model, and you let it add entries to your tool list. Each maps to a class of risk.
3. Then go through the checks. Execution: the server is a process that runs, so constrain which files it can read, whether it has network access, its timeout and the identity it runs as — the least-privilege and sandbox story from yesterday. Data: treat everything it returns as untrusted input, which is exactly the indirect-injection scenario where instructions hide in a field of a tool result. Tool output is never instructions, and the permission gate must live in your process and fire before the call.
4. Third, governance, the part most people miss: the tool list can change at runtime — one listChanged notification and a new tool appears. So pin your allowlist by tool name, keep newly appearing tools out of the model's list until a human approves, and pin the server version instead of tracking upstream latest.
5. Fourth, availability and cost: this is a new external dependency. If it is down your agent silently loses a set of capabilities, so you need timeouts, graceful degradation (tell the model the capability is temporarily unavailable rather than failing the whole turn), and its calls on your observability dashboard.
6. Expect the follow-up: how do you decide it is worth attaching at all? Back to the three criteria — if only one host uses it and you could implement it yourself, you are taking third-party risk with no matching benefit.

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这题考的是抽象层次的区分，是国内面试开始高频出现的「Function Call / MCP / Skills 三者区别」的工具侧版本。
2. 拆法是问「加的是什么」：加的是访问外部系统的能力（查工单、读数据库、调内部服务）就是 MCP，它是协议层的工具；加的是一套多步骤的做法（发版检查、迁移流程）就是 skill，它是提示词层的流程包；每次会话都要遵守的约定就是项目说明文件。
3. 再给触发方式的差别：MCP 工具由模型在需要数据时调用；skill 由用户显式点名或由模型按描述匹配；说明文件每次会话开头无条件读入。
4. 结论落到一句话：规矩归说明文件、外部系统归 MCP、流程归 skill；同一件事只放一处，避免三处互相矛盾。
5. 可预期的追问：skill 里能不能调 MCP 工具？可以，skill 的步骤里可以要求使用某个工具，两者是正交的层次，不是替代关系。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. This tests separation of abstraction levels, the tooling-side version of the increasingly common 'function calling vs MCP vs skills' question.
2. Ask what is being added: access to an external system (tickets, databases, internal services) is MCP, a protocol-level tool; a multi-step procedure (release checklist, migration flow) is a skill, a prompt-level workflow package; conventions to obey every session belong in the instruction file.
3. Contrast triggers: MCP tools are invoked by the model when it needs data; skills are invoked explicitly by name or matched by description; instruction files are loaded unconditionally at session start.
4. Conclude: rules in the instruction file, external systems via MCP, procedures as skills; keep each fact in one place to avoid contradictions.
5. Expect the follow-up: can a skill use MCP tools? Yes; a skill's steps can call for a tool, the layers are orthogonal, not substitutes.

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这是本课最高频的一题。答错的典型是把三者摆成竞争关系，说「Skills 比 MCP 更轻量所以更好」——它们解决的根本不是同一个问题。
2. 先给一句能背下来的分工：**MCP 管接线，Skills 管经验**，而函数调用是接线之前那根最短的线。
3. 再落到缺口上。函数调用与 MCP 补的是**能力**：模型本来读不到你的数据库、发不出工单，给它工具它就能了。Skills 补的是**经验**：模型本来就会写提交信息，只是不知道你们这儿的格式。能力的缺口用工具补，经验的缺口用技能补。
4. 然后给两条对比里最有信息量的差异。第一，上下文成本：工具定义每一轮都要重发，而 skill 每轮只有名字与描述，正文按需加载。第二，装不上时的降级：工具与协议是二值的，接不上就没有；**一个 skill 装不上仍然是一份人能读的 Markdown**，这正是它能在几十家客户端铺开的原因——它不要求宿主实现协议，只要求宿主会读文件。
5. 选型给一条能当场走的流程：先分缺能力还是缺做法。缺能力时按复用面选，只有这一个应用要用就写函数调用，多个 Agent 都要用才值得做成 MCP 服务端。缺做法时按确定性选，靠指令说清楚就写进 skill 正文，结果必须逐字一致就配脚本。
6. 最后一定要说配合。三者常态是叠着用：MCP 服务端把工单系统接进来成为工具，skill 的正文里写「先用工单查询工具拉出本周工单，再按这份模板归类」。**工具给它手，skill 给它章法。**
7. 可预期的追问是「那什么时候不该用 MCP」。答案是只有一个应用要用、动作又只有两三个的时候——为它起一个服务端是过度设计，直接写函数调用更短。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. The most common question in this course. The classic mistake is framing the three as competitors and saying skills are lighter than MCP, when they do not solve the same problem.
2. Lead with the one-line division: MCP handles wiring, Skills handle experience, and function calling is the shortest wire of all.
3. Then name the gaps. Function calling and MCP supply capability: the model cannot reach your database or file a ticket until you give it a tool. Skills supply experience: the model can already write a commit message, it just does not know your format.
4. Give the two most informative contrasts. Context cost: tool definitions are resent every turn, while a skill costs only its name and description per turn with the body loaded on demand. Degradation: tools and protocols are binary, but a skill that fails to install is still readable Markdown, which is exactly why the format spread across dozens of clients. It requires the host to read files, not to implement a protocol.
5. For selection give a runnable decision path. First separate missing capability from missing method. For capability, choose by reuse surface: one application means function calling, several agents justify an MCP server. For method, choose by determinism: instructions go in the skill body, byte-identical results go in a bundled script.
6. Close on composition. The normal case stacks them: an MCP server exposes the ticket system as a tool, and a skill body says to pull this week's tickets with that tool and then group them by a template. Tools give hands, skills give procedure.
7. Expected follow-up: when should you not use MCP? When only one application needs it and there are just two or three actions. Standing up a server is over-engineering.