06The decision guide

NLWeb vs WebMCP: when to use each.

Match your need to the right protocol. Read top-to-bottom or jump to the row that sounds like your problem.

NLWeb Server-side, content-first WebMCP Client-side, action-first MCP The foundation A2A The parallel track

I want my product catalog to be answerable by AI search

NLWeb

Server-side semantic indexing of structured content is exactly NLWeb's job.

I want an agent to help users complete a multi-step booking on my site

WebMCP

The flow needs live page state and the user's session — only a client-side agent can drive it.

I want my SaaS dashboard to be operable by an agent the user brought

WebMCP

Admin actions behind auth run in the authenticated browser session, not headless.

I want my agent to delegate research to another specialist agent

A2A

Agent-to-agent delegation is a different category from exposing a website to an agent.

I want both: indexable content AND interactive tools

NLWeb WebMCP

Run NLWeb for discovery and WebMCP for in-session actions. See “Build both.”

I want one of my agents to be discoverable by other agents

A2A

Publish an A2A agent card with skills so other agents can find and delegate to it.

I'm building an internal tool and want my own LLM client to operate it

WebMCP

WebMCP if it's browser-based; talk MCP directly if it isn't.

The gray zones

Sometimes the answer is “it depends.” A content site with a single interactive search box might reasonably ship NLWeb alone and skip WebMCP. A heavily authenticated app with little public content leans WebMCP-only, even though its data could in principle be indexed. When both discovery and in-session action matter, you want both — which is its own design exercise.

See: building a site that speaks both →