I am very curious how many MCP servers will actually implement all of this:
"MCP authorization today is built around a person approving access in a browser. That works well for interactive clients, but more and more of the callers are agents running as cloud workloads with their own identity, acting on behalf of a user who isn’t present, or delegating narrower authority to sub-agents. We want MCP servers to have a standardized way to recognize and trust those agent identities, built on existing standards rather than pasted API keys and long-lived tokens.
The work here covers finalizing Demonstrating Proof of Possession (DPoP) and driving its adoption, and defining an opinionated path for agent identity and delegation through Workload Identity Federation, the ID-JAG grant behind Enterprise-Managed Authorization, and standard token exchange. We will also continue to grow our engagement with the OAuth standards bodies, including the IETF OAuth and WIMSE working groups, to help the underlying standards evolve with the building blocks that agent identity needs."
Why, directionally all of them. What they say is obviously true. Having to manually click things in the browser is a bottleneck and will be less and less acceptable for serious users.
And the individual work attached to making that transition will be done by agents.
agree. it seems there are two streams and they could diverge or converge?
1. workloads use existing credentials
support RFC 7523 and OIDC discovery, 'trust the trust (credentials) which has already been established'. basically extend current dominant NHI paradigm.
2. DPoP
mandate a signed proof for each request. so tie credential to a client-held key and specific request detail or context. viable to do at scale with #1, or does it diverge (e.g. because most #1 methods as most are not designed for DPoP?
Even now, the mcp server itself doesn't have to implement all of the possible security options. You can use something like agentgateway to act as an auth proxy for your mcp servers.
> We’re starting a progressive discovery effort so a server can offer a small entry point and reveal more of its catalog as the conversation narrows.
Kind of late to the party. I've had to implement lazy loading of mcps in a couple of harnesses now but am moving to implement everything as code mode instead.
Sometimes I really respect senior developers. When specs change, you obviously have to update existing work too. Looking at this MCP change, it seems like it's becoming stateless—I'm already wondering how to adapt.
Senior programmers always advised me to only use things that have been around for at least three years. Now I finally understand why.
I'm very bullish on MCP (or at least MCP "like" implementations), as they solve a lot of problems for non-devs as they're much easier and safer to add into ChatGPT, Claude and other desktop + web apps.
They provide a set of tools and a context when to use those tools (much like a packaged version of a CLI+API and a skill) which makes them more discoverable than other options.
I've got a few folks using my open source data storage MCP - https://github.com/ExpeditedProjects/hutchdb - now and it makes a lot more sense than any other implementation for what they're doing
I’ll never understand the “I’ve never used it but am absolutely certain I would get zero value from it if I did” mentality.
I use MCP to accelerate CAD mould-making and for music production. I use it to avoid copying and pasting slack threads, and to let AI drive an eval system so I don’t have to manually configure things in a UI.
It’s just hard to imagine both not using it and being so sure it has no use.
I agree, I've found MCP to be a waste of time. Any HTTP API + OpenAPI spec is sufficient to get my agents to do anything they need to do. Bonus that it just uses regular HTTP semantics and all the tools and infrastructure that have been developed around that for decades. Instead of some inscrutable json RPC POST-only payload that needs tons of custom tooling for introspection, logging, etc.
So I’ve been working on a personal finance app, and I added an MCP to it. Connected my Claude to it, mainly for testing purposes.
The other day I was heading to Home Depot to buy some gardening stuff and I was asking some some questions around what I could plant at this time and still harvest before winter.
It answers me, then brings up how my home improvement budget is nearing its limit for the month. I then ask it how I’m doing on my wider retirement plan and it mentions I’m a few thousand dollars ahead of schedule for the plan. So I decided it’s okay to go over budget on that category this month.
This type of emergent behavior of agents you work with having more context about you, it’s very useful in ways I didn’t expect.
MCP is essentially just a convention for APIs that standardizes the concept of a “resource”. It spares the LLM a lot of work figuring out what the “things” are in a problem domain, and how various endpoints relate to those “things”.
Because you're a dev thinking for devs. No 60 year old is going to use Claude skills with the CLI. If my customers want their AI to interact with my product and MCP is the best way about it.
> If my customers want their AI to interact with my product and MCP is the best way about it.
Would be really interested to know how many of your customers actually use the MCP, who aren't already devs thinking like devs. I have doubts that many non-technical people are connecting AI to third-party services via MCP (or even using AI at all beyond "mundane" things like "generate an image of my cat as a clown" or "show me what my house looks like with blue paint and white trim").
Good. Introducing a bespoke new protocol was one of the more bone-headed things MCP did on initial release.
"MCP authorization today is built around a person approving access in a browser. That works well for interactive clients, but more and more of the callers are agents running as cloud workloads with their own identity, acting on behalf of a user who isn’t present, or delegating narrower authority to sub-agents. We want MCP servers to have a standardized way to recognize and trust those agent identities, built on existing standards rather than pasted API keys and long-lived tokens.
The work here covers finalizing Demonstrating Proof of Possession (DPoP) and driving its adoption, and defining an opinionated path for agent identity and delegation through Workload Identity Federation, the ID-JAG grant behind Enterprise-Managed Authorization, and standard token exchange. We will also continue to grow our engagement with the OAuth standards bodies, including the IETF OAuth and WIMSE working groups, to help the underlying standards evolve with the building blocks that agent identity needs."
I really love the idea of fully enabled agents and being able to cut down on human in the loop moments.
Things like https://projects.dev/ for example.
A ton of security problems and others to solve but it's still where I want the future of all this to go.
And the individual work attached to making that transition will be done by agents.
1. workloads use existing credentials support RFC 7523 and OIDC discovery, 'trust the trust (credentials) which has already been established'. basically extend current dominant NHI paradigm.
2. DPoP mandate a signed proof for each request. so tie credential to a client-held key and specific request detail or context. viable to do at scale with #1, or does it diverge (e.g. because most #1 methods as most are not designed for DPoP?
Kind of late to the party. I've had to implement lazy loading of mcps in a couple of harnesses now but am moving to implement everything as code mode instead.
I was getting fed up with AWS mcp telling me it is eol.
All while it is just a fancy way make your OpenSchema PAI visible to AI.
[1] https://doc.akka.io/libraries/akka-core/current/typed/actors...
Senior programmers always advised me to only use things that have been around for at least three years. Now I finally understand why.
Yikes. I can understand the desire to mitigate churn, but following this advice would be career suicide. Trying new things is essential.
They provide a set of tools and a context when to use those tools (much like a packaged version of a CLI+API and a skill) which makes them more discoverable than other options.
I've got a few folks using my open source data storage MCP - https://github.com/ExpeditedProjects/hutchdb - now and it makes a lot more sense than any other implementation for what they're doing
I use MCP to accelerate CAD mould-making and for music production. I use it to avoid copying and pasting slack threads, and to let AI drive an eval system so I don’t have to manually configure things in a UI.
It’s just hard to imagine both not using it and being so sure it has no use.
The other day I was heading to Home Depot to buy some gardening stuff and I was asking some some questions around what I could plant at this time and still harvest before winter.
It answers me, then brings up how my home improvement budget is nearing its limit for the month. I then ask it how I’m doing on my wider retirement plan and it mentions I’m a few thousand dollars ahead of schedule for the plan. So I decided it’s okay to go over budget on that category this month.
This type of emergent behavior of agents you work with having more context about you, it’s very useful in ways I didn’t expect.
Would be really interested to know how many of your customers actually use the MCP, who aren't already devs thinking like devs. I have doubts that many non-technical people are connecting AI to third-party services via MCP (or even using AI at all beyond "mundane" things like "generate an image of my cat as a clown" or "show me what my house looks like with blue paint and white trim").
I build integration for DollarDeploy but it was tricky.