The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is how AI agents access external systems. It’s also a growing security gap for CISOs.
.avif)
AI agents are moving from experiments to infrastructure, and the protocol quietly enabling that shift is the Model Context Protocol (MCP).
Most security leaders are still asking, “What is MCP?” The better question is what MCP changes about the enterprise trust model. MCP doesn’t introduce a flashy new authentication system or exotic credentials. In most deployments, MCP connections are authorized using the same OAuth framework employees already use every day.
That familiarity is exactly why MCP security deserves attention now.
When an employee connects an AI agent or tool to a SaaS application via MCP, they complete a standard OAuth grant workflow. Just as they log into Google Workspace or Salesforce, they use the same authentication flow to connect AI systems. There are no API tokens to copy and paste and no infrastructure to provision manually—just a few clicks and the integration is live.
It is fast and intuitive, which is why adoption accelerates quickly. But it also allows employees to extend their own data access permissions to AI assistants, often without IT’s knowledge or oversight. The mechanism is familiar, yet the context is new, and the risk surface evolves with it.
Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a standardized way for AI agents and tools to access external systems, retrieve context, and interact with SaaS applications or internal services. In practice, MCP servers act as brokers between AI agents and enterprise systems.
An AI agent connects to an MCP server, and that server facilitates authorized access to platforms like Google Drive, GitHub, Slack, Jira, CRM systems, and internal knowledge bases. This is not theoretical architecture—it is how modern AI copilots, developer assistants, and workflow automation tools are integrated into daily operations.
For CISOs, MCP matters because it operationalizes AI-to-SaaS access at scale. It standardizes how agents retrieve data, execute actions, and maintain persistent connections to business systems. In doing so, it moves AI from isolated experimentation into the core of your production SaaS environment.
That shift is structural, not incremental.
Most MCP connections rely on OAuth authorization flows. When an employee connects an AI tool to a SaaS platform via MCP, they complete the same OAuth grant they would for a traditional app integration.
This low-friction model fueled the explosion of SaaS integrations over the past decade. Users sign in with Google or Microsoft, approve requested permissions, and establish connections in seconds.
The difference now is what sits behind that authorization.
OAuth itself is not new, and security teams already manage OAuth-based integrations across SaaS environments. They understand scopes, consent flows, and token lifecycles in the context of application-to-application connectivity.
With MCP, however, the authorized entity is often an AI agent that continuously retrieves context, processes sensitive information, and performs actions on a user’s behalf. There is no infrastructure deployment to review and no manual key exchange to slow adoption. The simplicity of the workflow lowers friction, which accelerates the expansion of AI-connected access across the enterprise.
That convenience is what makes MCP security distinct. It scales trust faster than most governance models were designed to handle.
Traditional SaaS integrations are often narrow in purpose. A marketing platform syncs leads, or a monitoring tool creates tickets. The data flow is relatively predictable and scoped to a specific function.
MCP-enabled AI agents operate differently. To function effectively, they frequently request broad access across repositories, shared drives, ticketing systems, or CRM environments. They may retrieve documents, summarize internal communications, analyze source code, and generate actions based on aggregated context.
These are not occasional API calls triggered by discrete events. They are persistent, high-bandwidth data pathways between enterprise systems and AI tools. MCP servers effectively become authorized data highways, moving sensitive information in ways that are dynamic and continuous.
If those pathways are unmanaged or poorly understood, the blast radius expands quickly.
MCP security risks are not limited to protocol flaws or software vulnerabilities. They emerge from how authorization, identity, and data access intersect in AI-driven ecosystems.
MCP servers create direct pipelines for AI tools to access sensitive enterprise data. If an unmanaged AI agent or third-party tool is compromised, it can use legitimately authorized OAuth tokens to retrieve and transmit data to an attacker-controlled endpoint.
No firewall bypass is required and no malware needs to propagate across endpoints. The agent simply uses the permissions it was granted.
From a logging perspective, the activity may appear as normal API traffic. That is what makes MCP security risks particularly challenging: the threat often operates within the bounds of authorized access.
To perform effectively, many AI agents request broad permissions. Users frequently approve scopes granting read and write access to entire repositories, shared folders, ticket queues, or CRM datasets without fully understanding the blast radius.
Least-privilege principles are rarely enforced at the moment of authorization. Over time, as additional agents are connected, scope creep accumulates across systems.
Each OAuth grant adds another persistent access pathway, often broader than necessary. Without continuous review and governance, MCP server security becomes a problem of excessive privilege at scale.
Every AI agent connected via MCP represents a non-human identity with ongoing access to corporate systems. As employees experiment with tools and assistants, they are effectively creating a shadow workforce operating alongside human users.
These AI identities may not be centrally inventoried or assigned clear ownership. They may retain access long after the associated project ends or the employee who authorized them changes roles. Over time, organizations accumulate dozens—or hundreds—of persistent, semi-autonomous actors with broad access rights.
Traditional identity governance programs were built around employees and service accounts. MCP accelerates the creation of a new category of identity that does not fit neatly into either model.
Not all MCP servers are hosted internally. Many AI tools rely on remote, third-party MCP servers that broker connections to enterprise SaaS platforms.
Security teams may have limited visibility into which remote MCP servers are active, what systems they connect to, or how they handle data once retrieved. If a remote MCP server is compromised, an attacker may inherit access pathways into enterprise systems through legitimately granted OAuth connections.
MCP server security therefore extends beyond hardening internal infrastructure. It requires visibility into external integration endpoints that sit outside traditional control boundaries.
Many organizations assume their existing controls will naturally extend to MCP-based integrations. In practice, they often do not.
Perimeter-based defenses provide little protection when traffic flows through authorized, encrypted SaaS channels. CASB and network monitoring tools may detect certain SaaS interactions but frequently lack context about agent-driven retrieval or specific OAuth scopes in use.
Static IAM reviews typically focus on users and service accounts, not evolving AI agents operating under delegated permissions. Vendor review processes may assess a SaaS provider at onboarding but overlook how that provider uses MCP to access and process data dynamically.
The core issue is not necessarily a missing tool. It is a visibility gap. MCP security challenges the assumption that authorized equals safe, particularly when authorization is granted at scale and with broad scope.
Securing MCP environments requires treating MCP servers as first-class trust boundaries within the enterprise architecture.
Organizations must establish visibility into all MCP servers interacting with corporate systems. That includes both internally hosted MCP servers and remote third-party endpoints.
Security teams should identify which SaaS platforms are connected via MCP, which identities are authorizing those connections, and how frequently those connections are used. Without a reliable inventory, meaningful governance is impossible.
AI agents connected through MCP should be classified and governed as non-human identities. That classification enables structured lifecycle controls, including ownership tracking, periodic access reviews, and defined decommissioning processes.
Tokens should be rotated appropriately, and access should be revoked when projects conclude or employees depart. Without lifecycle management, persistent AI identities become long-lived blind spots within the environment.
Because MCP security is tightly coupled with OAuth, scope governance becomes foundational. Security teams should review requested scopes at the time of authorization and enforce least-privilege wherever possible.
Monitoring scope drift over time is equally important. Permissions that were once appropriate may become excessive as use cases evolve.
Dormant but still-active grants should be identified and cleaned up regularly. In an MCP-enabled ecosystem, OAuth visibility is central to effective risk management.
MCP server security also requires monitoring how data moves between systems. That includes observing which SaaS platforms agents access, identifying unusual spikes in data retrieval, and detecting anomalous behavior patterns.
The objective is not to block legitimate AI workflows. It is to ensure that these data highways remain visible, auditable, and governed as usage scales.
As MCP adoption accelerates, security leaders should move from reactive oversight to structured governance.
Here are practical MCP security best practices to anchor a long-term approach:
These practices shift MCP security from ad hoc reaction to structured risk management aligned with identity governance principles.
MCP adoption will continue to grow as AI agents become embedded in developer workflows, customer support operations, marketing systems, and internal knowledge platforms. The number of MCP connections across enterprises will multiply accordingly.
OAuth-based flows will continue to lower friction, and employees will continue to experiment with new tools. As that experimentation scales, so does the shadow workforce of non-human identities operating alongside employees.
The question for security leaders is not whether MCP exists in their environment. It already does in some form. The more pressing question is whether it is visible and governed.
In an AI-driven enterprise, identity becomes the perimeter. MCP servers become integration hubs. MCP security becomes less about securing a protocol and more about governing how AI agents inherit and use human-granted permissions.
Visibility into which AI agents are connected to which SaaS systems, through which MCP servers, and with what level of access is foundational to securing the next phase of enterprise AI.
Get the full picture of MCP connections powering your AI agents and tools in your environment today. Start your free 14-day trial of Nudge Security.
