On OBTO, the agent can read the application graph and retrieve the source of an individual page through MCP. We used that path to inspect this website while preparing these articles. It gives a buyer something specific to examine when evaluating AI-assisted development.
For a buyer, the useful task is to evaluate what that interaction produces. Focus on the implementation, its operating destination, and the evidence available when it changes. Broad predictions about replacing developers are less useful to a team choosing how to build its next application.
Inspect the connection between conversation and action
Ask which capabilities the assistant has. Can it inspect existing code, query the application's structure, run checks, and read back a saved change? Which actions need approval?
The Model Context Protocol provides a standard interface for exposing capabilities to clients. That interface can make tools available to an assistant; it does not establish the correctness of the software the assistant creates.
Evaluate the actual tool path in the environment you will use. Record a small change, the evidence that it landed, and the check that it behaves as intended.
Follow an artifact through the agent's work
There are several observable stages in an agent-assisted change. First, the agent inspects the current implementation. Next, it proposes or edits source. A check can examine that source for specified contract violations. A later operation saves or deploys it, and a read-back confirms what is stored. Opening the application then tests another part of the result.
These stages can be close together in a conversation, but they answer different questions. A source validator can report no violations while a workflow still behaves incorrectly. A save receipt can identify the stored artifact without showing whether its screen renders. A browser test can show a working interface without proving every role boundary.
For this article batch, we used OBTO's inline validation on the proposed page source and rendered local previews. Those checks support specific claims about the prepared files. They do not establish live website publication; that requires the authorized save, read-back and live-page checks.
This gives a buyer a practical way to evaluate an agent's completion report. Follow each claim to the operation that supports it. When a stage was not exercised, keep it visible as remaining work rather than describing the entire application as verified.
Compare delivery models through a change request
Traditional development, low-code tools, and agent-driven platforms can all be part of a practical application strategy. Ask each candidate to implement the same bounded change and explain the result.
For example, add a decision note to an approval workflow. Check the interface, stored record, permissions, and historical behavior. Then inspect the handover material a future maintainer would receive.
This reveals differences that a generated screenshot cannot show: where the source lives, how dependencies are represented, what you can export, and how the team investigates a defect.
Keep the operating requirements visible
The business still needs someone to own access, integrations, recovery, support, and changes. Record who performs those jobs and what the platform demonstrably provides.
Avoid importing a vendor's general claim into your application's release notes. A platform may offer a feature that your implementation has not configured or tested. Likewise, a successful test of one workflow does not establish the reliability of every feature.
OBTO gives agents an MCP interface to application artifacts. We use that interface to inspect and manage this website. Its platform overview describes the model; a concrete acceptance case is how you evaluate whether it suits your work.
For the decision-note example, inspect the old record as well as the new one. The implementation should make clear what happens to requests created before the field existed.