Hi all. I'm a full-stack software engineer doing outside-the-industry research on the gap between independent MSIs (5-50-building mixed-vendor portfolios) and the vendor agentic AI platforms (JCI OpenBlue / Honeywell Forge / Siemens Building X / Niagara 5 native AI) that keep AI capability inside each vendor's controls walls.
The argument in one line: independent MSIs do the Brick/Haystack alignment work between whatever ontology the client lands on and whatever vendor tooling is in the building, but ezhuk's protocol-level bacnet-mcp doesn't reach into Brick/Haystack tagging, and the vendor agentic platforms don't reach across multi-vendor portfolios. The slot for a read-only Brick/Haystack-aware BACnet/IP MCP gateway looks empty.
Since the article posted, I shipped a v0.1 alpha at https://github.com/Yveshby27/brick-bacnet-mcp (pip install brick-bacnet-mcp; on the MCP registry; 4 MCP tools exposing tagged topology to any LLM agent). Read-only, local-only, no PHI/credentials/external egress. Brick library 37 rules; Haystack library 31 rules.
Honest pushback welcome: where am I misreading the slot, and do MSIs in your network feel this gap acutely enough that a read-only Brick/Haystack-aware MCP layer is useful as-is?
Good write-up. Read-only first makes sense, and I’d back your point about write-path liability: that is exactly what integrators will worry about once clients ask the agent to change things.
I’m not an MSI. I build the governance layer for AI-driven control (schema-defined limits on what an agent may command), and I’m speaking with integrators in the building-automation space. Happy to compare notes on what they say about read versus write.
What would an MSI need to see before trusting an agent with a setpoint?
Julio Chinchilla, ZillA Technologies
Yves HabchiYesterday
Hey Julio, sorry for the slow reply.
I’m not an MSI either, so this is based on what I’ve researched. I assume they’d want writes within fixed limits, a proposed change they approve before it’s sent, and an easy revert.
Happy to compare notes. What have the integrators you’re talking to said about read versus write so far?
Yves Habchi Wed 17 Jun
Hi all. I'm a full-stack software engineer doing outside-the-industry research on the gap between independent MSIs (5-50-building mixed-vendor portfolios) and the vendor agentic AI platforms (JCI OpenBlue / Honeywell Forge / Siemens Building X / Niagara 5 native AI) that keep AI capability inside each vendor's controls walls.
Write-up: https://habchy.dev/research/bacnet-msi-semantic-gap
The argument in one line: independent MSIs do the Brick/Haystack alignment work between whatever ontology the client lands on and whatever vendor tooling is in the building, but ezhuk's protocol-level bacnet-mcp doesn't reach into Brick/Haystack tagging, and the vendor agentic platforms don't reach across multi-vendor portfolios. The slot for a read-only Brick/Haystack-aware BACnet/IP MCP gateway looks empty.
Since the article posted, I shipped a v0.1 alpha at https://github.com/Yveshby27/brick-bacnet-mcp (pip install brick-bacnet-mcp; on the MCP registry; 4 MCP tools exposing tagged topology to any LLM agent). Read-only, local-only, no PHI/credentials/external egress. Brick library 37 rules; Haystack library 31 rules.
Honest pushback welcome: where am I misreading the slot, and do MSIs in your network feel this gap acutely enough that a read-only Brick/Haystack-aware MCP layer is useful as-is?
Yves Habchy https://habchy.dev
Julio Chinchilla Wed 21 Oct
Hi Yves,
Good write-up. Read-only first makes sense, and I’d back your point about write-path liability: that is exactly what integrators will worry about once clients ask the agent to change things.
I’m not an MSI. I build the governance layer for AI-driven control (schema-defined limits on what an agent may command), and I’m speaking with integrators in the building-automation space. Happy to compare notes on what they say about read versus write.
What would an MSI need to see before trusting an agent with a setpoint?
Julio Chinchilla, ZillA Technologies
Yves Habchi Yesterday
Hey Julio, sorry for the slow reply.
I’m not an MSI either, so this is based on what I’ve researched. I assume they’d want writes within fixed limits, a proposed change they approve before it’s sent, and an easy revert.
Happy to compare notes. What have the integrators you’re talking to said about read versus write so far?