Compare
mpl vs A2A
A2A (agent-to-agent) is a peer-to-peer messaging protocol for agents talking directly to other agents. mpl is the contract / quality / audit layer that runs on top.
A2A and MCP solve different transport problems (peer-to-peer vs client-server). mpl is transport-agnostic above both. If A2A is your wire, mpl is what makes the messages on that wire typed, scored, and provable.
Fair side-by-side
| A2A | mpl | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer in the stack | Transport (peer-to-peer agent messaging) | Above the transport |
| Primary concern | How agents discover each other and exchange task messages | What’s in the message, whether it meets quality, whether you can prove it later |
| Identity / provenance | Agent identity at the transport layer | Provenance block (agent_id, intent) on every envelope, paired with a content hash |
| Typed payloads | Message types defined per agent / capability | Versioned stype identifiers in a shared registry; same envelope across agents |
| Quality measurement | Not in scope | QoM profiles per envelope; thresholds enforced at the boundary |
| Audit trail | Not in scope (the application can log) | BLAKE3-hashed records with provenance and QoM, append-only |
| Mode of operation | In-process or networked, depending on impl | Sidecar proxy; transparent (observe) or strict (enforce) |
| Status in mpl repo | “A2A hardening” is a Phase 3 item per the README | Core protocol & proxy ship today (Phase 1/2 complete) |
| Substitutable? | No — A2A is the transport | No — mpl composes over A2A, doesn’t replace it |
When A2A alone is enough
Two agents in a controlled environment, exchanging short tasks, with no external auditability requirement and no need for quality regression over time. A2A handles the transport; you write the validation in the agents themselves.
When you also want mpl
- • The fabric spans teams or organisations, and you need contracts that don’t depend on the receiver implementing matching validation.
- • Quality scores per message so drift in one agent’s behaviour shows up before it’s a customer-visible outage.
- • A regulatory ask — SOX, GDPR, HIPAA, EU AI Act — needing demonstrable, tamper-evident records.
- • A single policy language across the whole fabric.
Honest caveat
A2A integration in mpl is explicitly a Phase 3 item per the project’s README (“A2A hardening, production readiness”). The Phase 1/2 proxy is built around the HTTP/MCP path first. If A2A is the transport you need today, check the project’s current release notes before depending on it in production.
How they run together
Agent A ──(A2A)──▶ mpl proxy ──(A2A)──▶ Agent B
│
├── validates contract
├── scores QoM profile
├── applies policy
└── writes audit record Sources
- mpl README, stack diagram listing A2A alongside MCP; Status table Phase 3 (“A2A hardening”).
- A2A project home at a2aproject.dev.
Spot something inaccurate? Open an issue.