Answers
MCP or integration? Scheduled, or asked for.
Use an integration when something has to happen on a schedule, the same way every time, with nobody in the room. Use an MCP when the value is in the question being different each time. They are not newer and older versions of the same thing, and the common mistake is switching one on expecting it to replace the other.
- Set up with your plan
- Unlimited users
- 30-day pilot
Where this goes wrong
An MCP gets sold as the upgrade.
The pitch is that connectors are the old way and an assistant is the new one. That reading loses the thing integrations are good at, which is happening reliably when nobody is paying attention.
Three ways the choice gets made badly
Replacing a nightly sync with a conversation
The finance figures that used to arrive every morning now arrive when somebody remembers to ask. Nothing broke and nobody noticed for a month, which is worse than breaking.
Waiting for a connector that was never needed
A team asks a vendor to build an integration for a report they run twice a quarter. Two requests a quarter is a question, not a pipeline, and the answer was already available.
Assuming the assistant can reach everything
An MCP reaches only what the software published and only with the access the person already has. That is a feature, and it means some jobs genuinely do need the connector.
How to decide
Four questions, in order.
The checklist
Does it need to happen without anyone present?
A figure that has to be current every Monday morning, a record created whenever a deal closes, a nightly reconciliation. If the answer is yes, it is an integration, and no assistant should be the reason it did or did not run.- Scheduled or event-driven
- Must survive nobody thinking about it
- Integration
Is the request the same every time?
Identical inputs and identical outputs mean there is nothing for an assistant to work out, and a fixed path is cheaper, faster and easier to audit. Save the assistant for the cases where the shape of the question changes.- Same inputs, same outputs
- Auditable by design
- Integration
Would you struggle to specify it in advance?
"Which of my objectives have not moved in six weeks, and who owns them" is a reasonable thing to want and an unreasonable thing to commission as a connector, because the next question will be different. This is what an MCP is for.- Different every time
- Not worth specifying in advance
- MCP
Does the answer need to become a change?
Looking something up is useful. The time is saved when the follow-up happens in the same breath: the action raised, the progress recorded, the owner changed. That only works if the MCP can write as well as read, which is the question to put to any vendor announcing one.- Read and then act
- Ask what it is allowed to write
- MCP, if it writes
In practice
Most teams end up running both.
The two do different jobs, and a setup with only one of them is usually missing something it has not noticed yet.
Which job goes where
Finance figures into a KPI
Integration. It has to be right when somebody opens the plan, not when somebody asks for it.
Calendar and meeting records
Integration. Scheduled, repetitive, and nobody wants to request it.
A question nobody wrote down in advance
MCP. The value is that you did not have to specify it.
Raising an action from a conversation
MCP, and only if it can write. Otherwise you are still typing it in afterwards.
A report somebody runs twice a quarter
MCP. Two requests a quarter does not repay building a pipeline.
Anything an auditor will ask about
Integration, or an MCP that labels what it changed. Reconstructing who did what matters more than the time saved.
Questions
Questions about choosing between them
Does an MCP replace our integrations?
No, and treating it as a replacement is the common mistake. Anything that has to happen on a schedule with nobody present still wants an integration. An MCP covers the requests you could not have specified in advance, which is a different set of jobs.
When is an integration clearly the right answer?
When the job is scheduled or event-driven, the inputs and outputs are the same every time, and it has to keep running when nobody is thinking about it. Finance figures feeding a KPI are the clearest example: they need to be current when someone opens the plan, not when someone remembers to ask.
When is an MCP clearly the right answer?
When you would struggle to write the request down in advance because the next one will be different, and when the answer needs to turn into a change straight away rather than a note to action later.
Can one MCP do what several integrations do?
Sometimes, but only for the jobs somebody is present to ask for. An MCP waits to be asked, so it cannot cover anything whose value depends on it running unattended, however many actions the server publishes.
Which does Empiraa GPS have?
Both. GPS connects to finance, sales and calendar tools through integrations, and GPS 1.22 added an MCP so you can work on the plan from Claude or ChatGPT. The integrations page lists the connectors and the Claude page covers what an assistant can change and the access you set.
Working out which one your job needs? Ask ANI and get a straight answer.
Run both on your own plan.
Start free. The connectors do the scheduled work, and the assistant does the part you only thought of this morning.