问HN：你认为谷歌的A2A协议会流行起来吗？
谷歌最近推出了Agent2Agent协议。
https://developers.googleblog.com/en/a2a-a-new-era-of-agent-interoperability
我一直在努力理解，实际上谁会通过使他们的代理符合这个规范而受益。
我理解的情况是，MCP作为一种协议之所以能够发展，是因为有两个拥有庞大开发者分布的成熟客户端（Claude Desktop和Cursor）采纳了这一标准。这意味着，如果你是开发者，MCP现在使你能够更强大地使用你已经在用的工具（Claude和Cursor）！
而A2A似乎并没有类似的好处。目前，A2A的成熟客户端分布为0，按照我的理解。因此，目前没有开发者会从构建A2A服务器中受益。也许A2A的设计是为了激励那些拥有大量现有分布的大型客户端（如ChatGPT、Claude、Cursor）支持A2A，以便他们能够访问其他人的代理。但所有这些客户端也是A2A的开发者（谷歌）的竞争对手。因此，即使一个客户端可能重视能够在其界面中轻松提供许多其他人的代理，采用谷歌的协议似乎也是一个风险选择。
查看原文
Google launched an Agent2Agent protocol recently.
https://developers.googleblog.com/en/a2a-a-new-era-of-agent-interoperability/<p>I have been struggling to understand who actually benefits by conforming their Agents to this spec.<p>The way I understood it, MCP as a protocol took off because there were two established Clients with very large developer distribution (Claude Desktop and Cursor) that adopted the standard. This mean if you're a developer, MCP now democratizes your ability to make the tools you already use (Claude & Cursor), more powerful!<p>A2A doesn't seem to have an analagous benefit. Current clients with established distribution for A2A is 0, as I understand it. Therefore there are no developers today that would benefit from building an A2A server. Perhaps A2A is designed to motivate the big clients with massive existing distribution (ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor) to support A2A so they can get access to other people's Agents. But all those clients are also competitors of A2A's maker (Google). So even though a Client might value being able to provide a lot of other people's agents easily in their interface, it seems like adopting Google's protocol might be a risky choice.