The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Back to feedPost
Prompt engineering is dead. Context engineering and Model Context Protocol (MCP) are taking over.
For the past year, everyone tried to fix bad AI outputs by writing longer prompts. Now, the best engineering teams are realizing that an AI agent is only as good as the live tools and context it can access.
By combining custom MCP servers with n8n webhooks and Claude, we can now build systems that:
• Read live API schemas and validate pull requests automatically
• Sync real-time meeting insights directly into CRM pipelines without manual data entry
• Query production databases safely with scoped permissions and full audit logs
When you give an LLM structured, real-time access to your actual stack instead of a static prompt, you go from a toy chatbot to an autonomous backend engineer.
Are you still relying on basic prompt templates, or have you started connecting your LLMs directly to live tool protocols?
The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Related posts
Why AI Agent Demos Break in Production
An AI agent demo only has to work once, on a clean input, with you watching. In production it runs again and again on messy real inputs, and nobody's watching.
I've built AI into real products, from a repricing engine that runs 24/7 for a US Amazon seller to a voice automation platform for a company in Germany. These are the three things I put in place before any agent goes live:
1. Scoped tools, not open access
Give the agent a short list of actions it's allowed to take, each with its own limits, instead of raw access to your database or APIs. Anything that touches money, customers or deleting data needs a human to approve it.
2. A plan for when the model fails
Model calls are slow, they time out, and sometimes they return something that makes no sense. Run agent work in background jobs with timeouts and retries, check the output before acting on it, and hand the task to a person when it still can't be trusted.
3. A log of every decision
Store every input, tool call and output. When the agent does something strange (and at some point it will), you can see exactly why and fix it instead of guessing.
None of this shows up in a demo. All of it decides whether the agent is still running a month later.
Planning an AI agent for your product? I offer a free build audit: calendly.com/roshaanali-business
"Works once with you watching" is the best way I've heard it put. Timeouts and a human fallback are the parts most demos skip.
Before you add AI to your product, find the screen where your users already copy and paste.
That's usually where the real AI feature lives. Not a chatbot in the corner, but a step people already do by hand: summarising a ticket, drafting a reply, tagging an upload, pulling fields out of a PDF.
Here's the order I follow when a founder asks me to add AI to an existing SaaS:
1. Pick one workflow, not "AI everywhere." Watch where users leave your app to paste something into ChatGPT and come back. That round trip is your feature.
2. Keep the model behind your own API. One service owns prompts, retries, logging and cost limits, so you can switch providers without touching the frontend.
3. Make it tenant-aware from day one. Each customer's data, prompts and usage stay scoped to their account, or the first enterprise security review will stop you.
4. Ship a draft, not a decision. Let the AI suggest and the user approve. You earn trust and get real feedback before you automate anything.
5. Measure accepted output, not tokens. If users rewrite most of what it produces, the prompt or the context is wrong, and that's your real roadmap.
Most AI features that flop didn't fail because of the model. They were bolted onto the wrong step.
What's the one task your users still copy into ChatGPT?
Watching where users paste into ChatGPT and come back is such a practical way to find the real feature. Most teams start with the chatbot instead.
Everyone is shipping AI agents right now. Almost no one is testing them — and that is the whole problem.
A demo agent and a production agent are different animals. The demo works because you walked it down the happy path. Production breaks on the paths you never imagined.
A real example from my own work: a support assistant correctly handed a conversation to a human when someone wrote "I want to talk to a person" in Spanish — but not in English, because one phrase was missing from a rule. Every automated test passed. It only surfaced when I ran real conversations through it.
That is the gap the "agents will replace everything" wave keeps skipping. The hard part was never making an agent act. It is making it:
• say "I don't know" instead of guessing,
• hand control back to a human at the right moment,
• and prove, with tests, that it still behaves when the input gets strange.
Autonomy is cheap. Trustworthy autonomy is the real engineering.
Before you let an AI agent near real users or real data — what is the first thing you check?
The Spanish vs English handoff bug is such a good example. Every test passes until a real user shows up.