MCP + Multi-Agent — How Agents Share Tools and Collaborate
Standardize tools with MCP, build role-based multi-agent systems with CrewAI. A2A protocol and architecture selection guide.
MCP + Multi-Agent — How Agents Share Tools and Collaborate
A single agent is powerful. But complex tasks in the real world are hard to solve with just one agent. What if you need to research, code, and review all at the same time? The answer is having multiple agents take on their own roles and collaborate.
In this post, we cover how to standardize tool integration with MCP (Model Context Protocol), build multi-agent teams with CrewAI, and enable agents to communicate with each other using A2A (Agent-to-Agent) patterns.
Series: Part 1: ReAct Pattern | Part 2: LangGraph + Reflection | Part 3 (this post) | Part 4: Production Deployment
The N×M Integration Problem
This part is for subscribers
A subscription unlocks every premium series and its Jupyter notebooks.
You need a free account to subscribe. Cancel anytime.
Related Posts
TurboQuant in vLLM on One A100 — Capacity, Speed, and Accuracy of All Four Presets on an 8B Model
vLLM 0.28, Qwen3-8B bf16, one A100 80GB: KV capacity, batched throughput, 32K decode, needle-in-haystack, and GSM8K for bf16, fp8, and all four TurboQuant presets — the 8B size vLLM's own study skipped.
TurboQuant From Scratch on Real KV Tensors — What 3 Bits Actually Cost, and Why the Forks Beat the Paper's Layout
PolarQuant in 60 lines of PyTorch on real KV from Llama-3.2-1B and Qwen3-8B: 3-bit costs +10% perplexity, k8v4 +0.2%, QJL only pays below 4 bits, and the block-32 layout explains half the forks' edge.
TurboQuant llama.cpp CUDA Fork, Measured on an A100 — turbo4 Matches q4_0, turbo3 Breaks at Long Context
Qwen3-8B Q4_K_M on one A100, six KV types: perplexity, prefill, decode-at-depth, and VRAM measured. turbo4 matches q4_0 quality and beats q8_0 decode 2.5x at depth; turbo3 triples perplexity at 32K context.