CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 10Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationAccess Control and TrustMobile Agent-Based Network Management

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

A survey of agent interoperability protocols: Model Context Protocol (MCP), Agent Communication Protocol (ACP), Agent-to-Agent Protocol (A2A), and Agent Network Protocol (ANP)

Open access
Ehtesham, Abul, Singh, Aditi, Gupta, Gaurav Kumar, Kumar, Saket·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2505.02279arXiv 2505.02279
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large language model powered autonomous agents demand robust, standardized protocols to integrate tools, share contextual data, and coordinate tasks across heterogeneous systems. Ad-hoc integrations are difficult to scale, secure, and generalize across domains. This survey examines four emerging agent communication protocols: Model Context Protocol (MCP), Agent Communication Protocol (ACP), Agent-to-Agent Protocol (A2A), and Agent Network Protocol (ANP), each addressing interoperability in deployment contexts. MCP provides a JSON-RPC client-server interface for secure tool invocation and typed data exchange. ACP defines a general-purpose communication protocol over RESTful HTTP, supporting MIME-typed multipart messages and synchronous and asynchronous interactions. Its lightweight and runtime-independent design enables scalable agent invocation, while features like session management, message routing, and integration with role-based and decentralized identifiers (DIDs). A2A enables peer-to-peer task delegation using capability-based Agent Cards, supporting secure and scalable collaboration across enterprise agent workflows. ANP supports open network agent discovery and secure collaboration using W3C decentralized identifiers DIDs and JSON-LD graphs. The protocols are compared across multiple dimensions, including interaction modes, discovery mechanisms, communication patterns, and security models. Based on the comparative analysis, a phased adoption roadmap is proposed: beginning with MCP for tool access, followed by ACP for structured, multimodal messaging session-aware interaction and both online and offline agent discovery across scalable, HTTP-based deployments A2A for collaborative task execution, and extending to ANP for decentralized agent marketplaces. This work provides a comprehensive foundation for designing secure, interoperable, and scalable ecosystems of LLM-powered agents.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2505.02279

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Swarm Agent framework utilizes real-time outputs to direct tool invocations while addressing limitations in static tool registries and bespoke communication frameworks.

    “The Swarm Agent framework utilizes real-time outputs to direct tool invocations while addressing limitations in static tool registries and bespoke communication frameworks [814, 267, 250].”

    From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [250]

    Table 1 (p. 6) identifies Swarm as a lightweight framework for stateless multi-agent coordination, but does not describe it using real-time outputs to direct tool invocations. Section 3.5 (p. 5) says these frameworks continue to rely on static tool registries and bespoke communication layers—the opposite of the claim that Swarm addresses those limitations. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Advanced orchestration frameworks incorporate intent recognition, contextual memory maintenance, and task dispatching components for intelligent coordination across domain-specific agents, with the Swarm Agent framework utilizing real-time outputs to direct tool invocations while addressing limitations in static tool registries and bespoke communication frameworks.

    “Advanced orchestration frameworks incorporate intent recognition, contextual memory maintenance, and task dispatching components for intelligent coordination across domain-specific agents, with the Swarm Agent framework utilizing real-time outputs to direct tool invocations while addressing limitations in static tool registries and bespoke communication frameworks [814, 267, 250].”

    From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [250]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • ANP extends interoperability to open internet through W3C decentralized identifiers and JSON-LD graphs, with emerging protocols AGNTCY and Agora diversifying standardization ecosystems.

    “ANP extends interoperability to open internet through W3C decentralized identifiers and JSON-LD graphs, with emerging protocols AGNTCY and Agora diversifying standardization ecosystems [250, 685, 1137].”

    From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [250]

    Section 2 (p. 3) describes ANP using W3C decentralized identifiers for collaboration over the open internet, and Section 7.3 (p. 17) specifies JSON-LD as its data format. The passages from our copy do not support the additional claim that AGNTCY and Agora are emerging protocols diversifying standardization ecosystems; searches for those names returned no matching passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • MCP functions as 'USB-C for AI,' standardizing agent-environment interactions through JSON-RPC client-server interfaces, enabling hundreds of servers across diverse domains while introducing security vulnerabilities.

    “MCP functions as 'USB-C for AI,' standardizing agent-environment interactions through JSON-RPC client-server interfaces, enabling hundreds of servers across diverse domains while introducing security vulnerabilities [934, 250, 622, 270, 15, 261, 930, 1102, 374, 1194, 301, 1016, 719, 273].”

    From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [250]

    Section 2 (p. 2) likens MCP to a USB-C for AI and says it standardizes how applications provide tools and data to LLMs. The Abstract (p. 1) and Section 9.1 (p. 17) describe its JSON-RPC client-server interface, while Section 4.6 (p. 9) identifies security vulnerabilities. Our copy does not substantiate the claim that hundreds of MCP servers exist across diverse domains; searches for that count found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • ACP provides general-purpose RESTful HTTP communication supporting multipart messages and synchronous/asynchronous interactions with discovery, delegation, and orchestration features.

    “ACP provides generalpurpose RESTful HTTP communication supporting multipart messages and synchronous/asynchronous interactions with discovery, delegation, and orchestration features [281, 250].”

    From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [250]

    The protocol overview (p. 2) describes ACP as general-purpose RESTful HTTP communication with MIME-typed multipart messages, synchronous and asynchronous interactions, and agent discovery. Section 6.1 (p. 14) describes task requests as delegated work and artifacts that can be chained into workflows. The copy does not establish orchestration as a feature of ACP itself; Section 6 (p. 13) says its server is compatible with orchestration platforms, which is a narrower point. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [1][1] Tom B Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:1877-1901, 2020. -
  2. [2][2] Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 , 2021. - · arXiv
  3. [4][4] Grégoire Mialon, Roberto Dessì, Maria Lomeli, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Ram Pasunuru, Roberta Raileanu, Baptiste Rozière, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Asli Celikyilmaz, Edouard Grave, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. Augmented language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842 , 2023. - · arXiv
  4. [5][5] Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V. Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680 , 2024. Accessed: Apr. 30, 2025. - · arXiv
  5. [13][13] Khanh-Tung Tran, Dung Dao, Minh-Duong Nguyen, Quoc-Viet Pham, Barry O'Sullivan, and Hoang D. Nguyen. Multi-agent collaboration mechanisms: A survey of llms. CoRR , abs/2501.06322, 2025. - · arXiv
  6. [14][14] Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V. Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. CoRR , abs/2402.01680, 2024. - · arXiv
  7. [15][15] Bingyu Yan, Xiaoming Zhang, Litian Zhang, Lian Zhang, Ziyi Zhou, Dezhuang Miao, and Chaozhuo Li. Beyond self-talk: A communication-centric survey of llm-based multi-agent systems. CoRR , abs/2502.14321, 2025. - · arXiv
  8. [17][17] Ivan Milev, Mislav Balunovic, Maximilian Baader, and Martin Vechev. Toolfuzz: Automated agent tool testing. CoRR , abs/2503.04479, 2024. - · arXiv
  9. [18][18] Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach . Prentice Hall, 3rd edition, 2010. -
  10. [19][19] Michael Wooldridge. An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems . John Wiley & Sons, 2009. -
  11. [20][20] Stan Franklin and Art Graesser. Is it an agent, or just a program? a taxonomy for autonomous agents. International Journal of Cognitive Science , 6(1-2):29-36, 1997. -
  12. [21][21] Nicholas R. Jennings. On agent-based software engineering. Artificial Intelligence , 117(2):277-296, 2000. -
  13. [22][22] Michael R. Genesereth and Scott P. Ketchpel. The kqml protocol: A specification of language and communication. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) , pages 1-10. ACM, 1993. -
  14. [23][23] Tim Finin, Rich Fritzson, Donald McKay, and Robin McEntire. Kqml as an agent communication language. In Proceedings of the third international conference on Information and knowledge management , pages 456-463, 1994. -
  15. [25][25] Francisco Curbera, Marc Duftler, Rania Khalaf, William Nagy, Nirmal Mukhi, and Sanjiva Weerawarana. Web services: Why and how. IBM Systems Journal , 41(2):170-177, 2002. -
  16. [26][26] Gregor Hohpe and Bobby Woolf. Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions . Addison-Wesley Signature Series (Fowler). Addison-Wesley Professional, 2006. -
  17. [27][27] Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Mike Lewis, William Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, and Sebastian Riedel. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages 9459-9474, 2020. -
  18. [28][28] Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. Towards an efficient pipeline for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04426 , 2021. - · arXiv
  19. [33][33] Fangzhou Liu, Xinyu Li, Zihan Wu, Yang Song, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Autotool: Building general-purpose llm agents with self-extendable toolsets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02659 , 2024. - · arXiv
  20. [34][34] Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 8213-8229. ACL, 2023. -
  21. [35][35] Sheng Yao, Eric Urbach, and Dale Schuurmans. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 2659-2671. ACL, 2023. -
  22. [37][37] Thomas Shinn and Regina Barzilay. Reflexion: Language model self-improvement through iterative learning from failures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02493 , 2023. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02493 . - · arXiv
  23. [43][43] Dejan S. Milojicic, Markus Breugst, Ingo Busse, John Campbell, Stefan Covaci, Barry Friedman, Kazuya Kosaka, Danny B. Lange, Kouichi Ono, Mitsuru Oshima, Cynthia Tham, Sankar Virdhagriswaran, and Jim White. Masif: The omg mobile agent system interoperability facility. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Mobile Agents , MA'98, page 50-67, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998. Springer-Verlag. -
  24. [44][44] Pengfei He, Yupin Lin, Shen Dong, Han Xu, Yue Xing, and Hui Liu. Red-teaming llm multi-agent systems via communication attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14847 , 2025. - · arXiv
  25. [45][45] Sahar Abdelnabi, Amr Gomaa, Eugene Bagdasarian, Per Ola Kristensson, and Reza Shokri. Firewalls to secure dynamic llm agentic networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01822 , 2025. - · arXiv
  26. [48][48] Fiona Zhang and George Kumar. Ai agents under threat: A survey of key security challenges and mitigations. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Security in AI Systems , pages 1-12, 2025.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ehtesham, A., Singh, A., Gupta, G. K., & Kumar, S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2505.02279
arXiv
2505.02279
OpenAlex
W4415031180
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Mobile Agent-Based Network Management
Keywords
agent interoperability, multi-agent systems, Model Context Protocol, agent communication protocols

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review