u/Lala1994_u_1264

When I first started using MCP, I assumed the more tools I connected, the better the results would be.

So I added everything I thought I'd need: GitHub, Postgres, Slack, Google Drive, filesystem... basically every server that looked useful.

Instead of making Claude smarter, it often made my workflows less predictable.

After experimenting for a while, one thing made a surprisingly big difference:

I stopped exposing every tool to every conversation.

Now I create small, task-specific setups.

For example:

Project: Documentation

✓ Filesystem
✓ GitHub

No database.
No browser.
No Slack.

Project: Operations

✓ Postgres (read-only)
✓ Slack
✓ n8n

No filesystem.
No GitHub.

Claude seems to make better decisions when it has fewer tools to choose from. It also feels easier to debug because I know exactly which MCP server is involved if something goes wrong.

Another unexpected benefit is security.

A task that only needs read-only database access doesn't also need filesystem access "just in case."

It's a small change, but it made my workflows feel much more intentional.

I'm curious if anyone else has noticed something similar.

Do you prefer giving Claude access to everything at once, or do you create different MCP setups depending on the task?

One thing I've noticed is that many UGC portfolios now look like high-end commercials.

Perfect lighting.

Perfect color grading.

Perfect transitions.

But isn't the whole point of UGC to feel authentic?

If you were a brand, would you rather hire someone whose videos look like ads or someone whose content feels like something you'd actually stop and watch on TikTok?

I'm curious where people stand on this.

Most candidates spend months preparing technical questions, investment cases, modeling tests, and market discussions before landing a role in PE, VC, Hedge Funds, Asset Management, or a Family Office.

But I'm curious about what happened after you joined.

Was there a skill that turned out to be far more important than you expected?

Maybe it was writing investment memos, communicating with management teams, asking better questions, sourcing deals, managing senior stakeholders, or simply knowing how to present an investment idea clearly.

Recruiting processes do a decent job of testing technical ability, but many skills that drive long-term success seem much harder to evaluate in interviews.

For those already working on the buy side:

What skill has had the biggest impact on your career that interviews barely tested?

https://preview.redd.it/qoamipaxqtdh1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=6b5372cbe328b8c158c1dcd8b6f643a9e2d62613

I used to think updating my portfolio was something I'd do "when I had time." The problem is, when a great opportunity comes along, you rarely have the time to go back through months of work, find the original files, edit everything, and put it together properly.

Now I try to add every project shortly after it's finished. It doesn't have to be perfect, just enough to document what I worked on, the challenges, and the final result. Over time, it builds a much more accurate picture of your skills than trying to recreate everything from memory.

I've also realized that a portfolio isn't just for job hunting. It's useful when reaching out to clients, applying for freelance work, or even looking back to see how much you've improved. Plus, it's surprisingly motivating to see your progress laid out in one place.

If you've been putting it off, consider this your reminder: keep your portfolio updated while the work is still fresh. Your future self will be glad you did.

How often do you update yours?

I never really paid much attention to MCP because I assumed it was one of those things that looked impressive in demos but wouldn't actually help with my day-to-day work. Turns out I was wrong. I run a small e-commerce business on the side, and every morning I'd spend 20 t 30 minutes doing the same routine: checking my Postgres inventory, looking through support tickets for stock issues, updating a Google Sheet, and sending a quick summary to Slack. None of it was difficult, just repetitive enough to become annoying.

I tried Zapier for a while, but it felt overpriced for what I needed. Then I built a small Python script, which worked until I wanted to change one tiny thing and realized I'd have to dig through code I'd completely forgotten about. So I finally gave MCP a shot.

The setup ended up being much simpler than I expected. I only used two small MCP servers: one for my Postgres database (read-only, because I didn't trust myself enough to give it write access) and one connected to n8n, which I already use for automations. Now I can just tell Claude something like, "Check inventory below 20 units, trigger the supplier workflow, and post a summary in Slack," and it figures out the rest without me having to script every step.

It definitely wasn't perfect on the first try. Claude happily created three identical workflows because I never told it how I wanted them named, so I spent more time deleting duplicates than building the whole thing. I also realized pretty quickly that trying to connect everything at once was a mistake. If I had to do it again, I'd start with one service, make sure it worked properly, and only then add the next one. And I'd keep everything read-only until I was confident it was safe. I came a little too close to deleting something important.

The biggest surprise wasn't that it worked, it was how little code I actually had to write. The hardest part was honestly finding my database credentials. Sure, Claude still comes up with questionable SQL every now and then, and n8n occasionally decides it doesn't want to cooperate, but even with those hiccups it's still faster than doing everything manually.

I'm posting this because most of the MCP content I come across sounds like technical documentation. I was mostly looking for examples of what people are actually doing with it in real life. So now I'm curious: what have you automated with MCP that genuinely saves you time? And what broke in the most frustrating way possible?

After 50 PE interviews, 30 hedge fund pitch sessions, and a few VC screens (IB>MM PE), one thing stands out: buy-side firms don't really care that you "executed a $500M deal" or "built the LBO." They assume you have the technical skills. What they actually want to know is whether you can think like an investor. Your CV should explain why a deal made sense, what insight drove the thesis, or what risk everyone else overlooked.

The same applies in interviews. Technicals are just the entry ticket, judgment is what gets you the offer. Instead of giving generic answers about why you like a firm, talk about one of their recent deals and offer a thoughtful perspective or mild critique. Partners love discussing investments, and if you can make them think, they'll remember you.

One of the toughest questions I've been asked was: "If you had to invest 100% of your net worth in one of our portfolio companies for the next five years, which one would you pick, and why not the others?" It wasn't a modeling test; it was a judgment test.

What's the most unexpected buy-side interview question you've faced?