Connect with us

Non classé

Architecting Agentic Operations for Supply Chain – A Practical View of A2A and MCP

Published

on

Architecting Agentic Operations For Supply Chain – A Practical View Of A2a And Mcp

The conversation around AI in supply chain is evolving.

We have moved beyond proofs of concept and isolated copilots. The central question is no longer whether an agent can summarize a planning report or respond to a transportation exception.

The real question is this:

Can AI systems operate across domains, under governance, and at production scale?

That is not a model question. It is an architectural one.

A layered approach built around Agent to Agent communication, A2A, and the Model Context Protocol, MCP, provides a structured way forward. Not as features. As infrastructure.

Coordination vs Capability: The Foundational Separation

At a high level, the pattern is straightforward:

A2A provides the coordination layer

MCP provides the capability layer

This separation is more consequential than it first appears.

Without it, agent systems collapse into distributed monoliths characterized by:

Embedded business logic inside agents

Hardcoded integrations

Tight coupling between workflows

Limited extensibility

With proper separation:

Orchestration remains distinct

Execution logic is encapsulated

Capabilities are modular

The system can evolve without structural rewrites

This is the difference between experimentation and operational architecture.

A2A: The Coordination Layer

A2A allows agents to discover and communicate with one another through standardized interfaces. Each agent publishes an Agent Card describing:

Capabilities

Acceptable request types

Invocation parameters

Other agents can discover and invoke these capabilities without tight coupling.

For supply chain leaders, the implications are concrete:

A Transportation Agent calls a Compliance Agent

A Supplier Risk Agent coordinates with a Financial Exposure Agent

An Order Promising Agent interacts with a Warehouse Capacity Agent

The objective is not simply inter agent messaging. It is controlled interoperability across domains without embedding vendor specific logic inside every workflow.

This is how specialization scales.

MCP: The Capability Layer

If A2A governs how agents talk, MCP governs how they act.

The Model Context Protocol standardizes how tools, structured data, and predefined prompts are exposed to agents. Rather than embedding all operational logic inside the agent itself, MCP allows capabilities to be modular and discoverable.

In a supply chain context, MCP tools might include:

get_atp_snapshot

quote_spot_rate

screen_restricted_party

check_wave_capacity

generate_trade_documents

Adding a new compliance requirement or operational rule does not require rewriting orchestration logic.

It requires deploying a new tool.

This distinction enables:

Extensibility instead of fragility

Controlled evolution of capability

Separation between business intent and operational mechanics

The Layered Architectural Pattern

This model resolves into three defined roles:

Orchestrator Agent

Translates high level business intent into sequenced tasks

Maintains visibility into the overall objective

Specialist Agents

Execute domain specific responsibilities

Encapsulate transportation, compliance, sourcing, fulfillment, or risk logic

MCP Tool Layer

Provides granular, reusable operational capabilities

Exposes APIs, data services, and rule checks in modular form

The separation is deliberate:

Orchestrators own intent and sequencing

Specialists own execution logic

Tools remain modular and reusable

This ensures:

Business intent remains readable

Execution remains encapsulated

Capabilities remain composable

A Practical Scenario

Consider a high value customer order at risk of service failure.

Business objective: Recover service without eroding margin.

The orchestrator agent decomposes the goal into:

Assess constraints and risk

Generate recovery options

Validate feasibility

Execute and monitor

Through A2A, it coordinates:

Order Promising Agent

Transportation Agent

Compliance Agent

Warehouse Agent

Customer Communication Agent

Each specialist invokes MCP tools relevant to its domain, such as:

Allocation rules

Spot rate quotes

Compliance screening

Capacity checks

CRM case creation

Now introduce change:

A new emissions reporting requirement

A new supplier expedite option

In a layered architecture, these changes require:

Registering a new tool

Or introducing a new specialist agent

They do not require redesigning orchestration logic.

That is structural resilience.

Architectural Advantages

A layered A2A and MCP model enables:

Dynamic Discovery

New agents can join the ecosystem

Orchestration logic does not require rewrites

Composable Capabilities

Specialists assemble behavior from modular tools

Logic is not embedded permanently inside agents

Separation of Intent and Execution

Business goals remain governable

Execution details are isolated and replaceable

Adaptability

New requirements are met through composition

Structural reengineering is minimized

For enterprises operating globally, these are prerequisites, not enhancements.

Governance Is Not Optional

As agents discover tools and access systems, governance becomes central.

Enterprise grade deployment requires:

Strong identity and authorization controls

Tool level access management

Full decision logging and auditability

Human approval gates where required

Deterministic fallback behavior

Autonomy without control increases operational and regulatory risk.

Layered architecture enables governance. It does not replace it.

Coexistence with Deterministic Workflow Engines

This model does not eliminate traditional workflow orchestration platforms.

Those systems remain essential for:

Reliability

Scheduling

Observability

SLA enforcement

The layered model complements them:

Workflow engines provide deterministic backbone and operational control

A2A enables flexible coordination across agents

MCP standardizes capability exposure

The result is adaptability without sacrificing operational discipline.

The Bottom Line

Supply chain AI will not be determined by who deploys the most capable standalone model.

It will be determined by who builds systems that:

Coordinate effectively across domains

Incorporate new capabilities without architectural rewrites

Maintain control under regulatory pressure

Avoid recreating monoliths in distributed form

A2A and MCP represent a structured attempt to provide that foundation.

The post Architecting Agentic Operations for Supply Chain – A Practical View of A2A and MCP appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Ocean rates ease as LNY begins; US port call fees again? – February 17, 2026 Update

Published

on

By

Ocean rates ease as LNY begins; US port call fees again? – February 17, 2026 Update

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Published: February 17, 2026

Updated: February 18, 2026

Blog

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) decreased 2%.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) decreased 12%.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) decreased 5%.

Asia-Mediterranean prices(FBX13 Weekly) decreased 4%.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices increased 1%.

China – N. Europe weekly prices increased 8%.

N. Europe – N. America weekly prices increased 4%.

Analysis

US steps toward maritime protectionism aimed at reviving the US shipbuilding industry resurfaced this week for the first time since the suspension of proposed port call fees on Chinese vessels late last year.

The administration’s Maritime Action Plan – which does not give a timeline for implementation – features a long list of possible steps including a proposal for port fees of between one and twenty five cents per kilo of freight arriving on foreign-buillt vessels. Ocean expert Lars Jensen estimates these fees would range from about $150/FEU for a one cent per kilo charge to a maximum of a prohibitive $3,750/FEU.

Other recent US trade-related developments include the White House considering lowering steel and aluminum tariffs for consumer goods, a – symbolic, but partially Republican-backed – House of Representatives bill passed last week invalidating tariffs imposed on Canada last year, marking the highest profile challenge yet by Republicans to Trump’s tariffs, and rising tensions in the Panama Canal port operations dispute, with Hutchinson Ports threatening legal action against Maersk’s terminal operator if it takes steps to take over the disputed ports.

One impact of the US trade war has been a diversification of trade partners and increase of commerce between non-US economies, with several long-running negotiations being spurred to completion as a result, including a EU – Australia trade agreement which is nearing completion. Likewise, this trend of exporting countries seeking alternative sources for growth is also being reflected in ocean freight flows, with carriers shifting some capacity and resources to Far East – W. Africa lanes as demand increases. This shift may also be a factor in recent service reductions on the transatlantic.

Hapag-Lloyd has agreed to acquire ZIM, marking the most significant acquisition in the container market in quite some time. The deal requires shareholder and various regulatory approval and if approved won’t be completed until late this year.

With the purchase Hapag-Lloyd will remain the fifth largest carrier by capacity, but adding ZIM – currently the tenth largest carrier with more than 700k TEU according to Alphaliner – would push it closer to the number four spot with more than three million TEU combined. That capacity will help Hapag-Lloyd, whose Gemini Cooperation partner Maersk was also a bidder, increase its overall market share, particularly on the Far East – N. America and transatlantic lanes.

Container rates continued to ease on east-west lanes last week as the Lunar New Year holiday period got underway. Asia – US East Coast prices fell 12% to about $3,000/FEU and back to early December levels before pre-LNY demand picked up. Asia – N. Europe rates dipped 5% to about $2,400/FEU, also back to December levels while prices to Mediterranean ports fell 4% to $3,600/FEU but remain several hundred dollars above its level in December.

The end of pre-LNY demand is letting rates slide on Asia – Europe lanes even as weather disruptions continue to cause significant delays and backlogs at many Western Med and N. Europe ports and carriers introduce disruption surcharges on some lanes. Strong winds and high waves which have come and gone several times over the last few weeks made N. Atlantic transits difficult again mid-last week. Conditions improved and operations resumed over the weekend and carriers don’t expect additional weather disruptions this week.

Carriers will blank a significant number of sailings across these lanes over the holiday period, which should slow the rate decline. The FBX Global benchmark rate is 44% lower than it was last year, pointing to the impact of a growing fleet, which is also starting to be reflected in falling carrier revenue.

Air cargo rates from China to the US remained elevated last week at $7.40/kg and prices to Europe increased 8% to $3.60/kg, possibly reflecting some last minute pre-LNY push, though pre-holiday demand was reportedly subdued compared to typical volume increases this time of year.

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Freightos Terminal: Real-time pricing dashboards to benchmark rates and track market trends.

Procure: Streamlined procurement and cost savings with digital rate management and automated workflows.

Rate, Book, & Manage: Real-time rate comparison, instant booking, and easy tracking at every shipment stage.

Prateek

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post Ocean rates ease as LNY begins; US port call fees again? – February 17, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Supply Chain Technology Is Entering Its Second Phase – Collapsing Coordination Latency Across Nodes

Published

on

By

Supply Chain Technology Is Entering Its Second Phase – Collapsing Coordination Latency Across Nodes

We have spent the last several years embedding AI into supply chain systems.

Forecasting improved. Routing tightened. Visibility expanded. Assistants appeared inside planning tools.

That was the first phase.

The second phase is not about smarter models. It is about where intelligence sits and how decisions are coordinated across the network.

For decades, our systems optimized inside functional silos. Planning optimized forecasts. Transportation optimized routes. Warehousing optimized slotting. Each function improved locally. Cross functional coordination still depended on human escalation.

That model is reaching its limit.

The next separation in this market will not be between companies that have AI and those that do not. It will be between companies that can coordinate decisions across functions in real time and those that still rely on manual synchronization.

The economic impact is not in better dashboards. It is in collapsing coordination latency across nodes.

When a shipment slips, inventory exposure should adjust immediately. Customer commitments should update automatically. Procurement buffers should rebalance without waiting for a planner to connect the dots. These are linked decisions. Treating them as isolated workflows introduces cost and delay.

This is why agent to agent coordination matters. Not as a feature, but as infrastructure.

We are moving from system integration to decision integration. Inventory logic, transportation logic, sourcing logic, and customer logic must negotiate mitigation paths dynamically. If they cannot, the network absorbs friction.

Coordination without memory, however, does not compound.

Stateless assistants are sufficient for answering questions. They are insufficient for operating a network. A supply chain remembers supplier variability, seasonal distortion, regulatory nuance, and the outcomes of past mitigation strategies. Systems that cannot retain and apply that context will repeatedly rediscover the same problems.

Persistent context is becoming a credibility requirement.

Beneath this sits a structural reality we have always known but rarely addressed rigorously enough.

Supply chains are graphs. Dependencies matter more than events.

A port delay is not a single incident. It is a cascade across lanes, SKUs, facilities, and customers. A regulatory change does not apply uniformly. It affects specific trade lanes and product categories.

Systems that reason only at the document or transaction level will remain reactive. Systems that reason across relationships can model impact paths and recommend alternatives that respect the structure of the network.

That is the difference between visibility and intelligence.

All of this is constrained by a familiar issue: data integrity.

Master data alignment, entity resolution, consistent identifiers, governance. These are not new topics. But once systems begin executing decisions autonomously, inconsistency becomes an operational risk, not an IT nuisance.

AI does not correct weak data foundations. It amplifies them.

Capital flows reflect this shift. We are seeing consolidation around execution suites. We are seeing investment in risk mitigation and in transit intelligence where disruption has measurable financial impact. We are seeing continued automation where throughput constraints are structural.

The market is beginning to distinguish between AI as interface and AI as operating layer.

There are risks embedded in this transition. Retrieval systems that connect to contracts and compliance documents expand the attack surface. Autonomous decision making raises accountability questions. Proprietary orchestration layers increase switching costs.

Architecture choices made now will define competitive flexibility later.

Over the next twelve months, the market narrative will mature. The question will not be who has AI. It will be who has a coherent intelligence layer capable of closing the loop.

Detect disruption.
Assess network impact.
Execute mitigation.
Incorporate the outcome into future decisions.

In production. With traceability.

Supply chains that can compound intelligence across cycles will separate from those that simply digitized workflows.

That separation is beginning.

The post Supply Chain Technology Is Entering Its Second Phase – Collapsing Coordination Latency Across Nodes appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

What the ARC Industry Leadership Forum Revealed About the Future of Supply Chain Execution

Published

on

By

What The Arc Industry Leadership Forum Revealed About The Future Of Supply Chain Execution

By the end of this year’s ARC Industry Leadership Forum, a consistent picture had emerged. The discussion shifted away from aspiration and toward execution discipline.

Across the week, conversations converged on a shared understanding of what is constraining progress. It is not a lack of tools. It is not confusion about direction. And it is not an absence of data.

The constraint is execution under real-world variability.

Supply chain environments are changing faster than many operating models can adapt. Raw materials fluctuate. Energy availability is less predictable. Demand patterns shift with little warning. Under these conditions, even well-designed systems struggle if they rely on assumptions that no longer hold consistently.

Autonomy, viewed this way, is less a technology challenge than an organizational one. Systems can recommend and optimize, but value depends on the ability to respond in a coordinated and timely manner.

Another recurring theme was sequencing. Rather than asking how quickly advanced capabilities can be deployed, leaders focused on what must be stabilized first: standardized execution, shared data definitions, and clear ownership between planning and execution.

A quieter but important shift was the move away from external benchmarks toward internal consistency. The goal was not to emulate industry leaders, but to reduce self-inflicted complexity.

The Forum closed without dramatic conclusions, which is appropriate. Progress in supply chain and logistics operations rarely comes from singular breakthroughs. It comes from addressing constraints methodically.

This year’s Forum clarified the work ahead. For many organizations, that clarity may be the most valuable outcome of the week.

The post What the ARC Industry Leadership Forum Revealed About the Future of Supply Chain Execution appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending