MCP is fast becoming the control layer for enterprise AI
As AI agents start operating across core systems, Model Context Protocol (MCP) is emerging as the connective tissue executives can't ignore. It's not hype-it's infrastructure. MCP has moved from an obscure idea to the center of conversations about agentic AI, governance, and security because it solves a painful problem: letting AI interact with your existing tools without a tangle of custom integrations. For a primer, see MCP.
In an interview last year, veteran security executive Andy Ellis called the inflection point early: "I think MCP is going to be massive at RSA. Instead of having an API tightly defined between a client and a server, you put an LLM on either end and let them negotiate what to exchange. It will ... make it really scary." RSA Conference organizers now report that many 2026 submissions focus on MCP-a quick shift from theory to deployment.
Why MCP matters now
MCP standardizes how AI agents retrieve data and act within enterprise systems. Think of it as the USB-C of AI: a common connector that removes the need for bespoke, brittle middleware. Official docs are here: modelcontextprotocol.io.
The result: integration shifts from heavy engineering to configuration. Existing systems become accessible without rebuilding them. Even non-engineers can wire data sources into AI workflows. That's why adoption is accelerating inside developer tools, coding assistants, and operational platforms.
Integration friction meets AI acceleration
Most stalled AI pilots didn't fail because models were weak-they failed because integration was slow and fragile. MCP reduces that friction. It lets teams connect the stack they already have instead of inventing a new one.
Ellis put it plainly: "MCP lets you plug your existing applications together." That utility is driving bottom-up adoption inside engineering and automation teams-and pushing governance to catch up.
MCP and the rise of agentic AI
Agentic AI needs two things: reliable access to data and the ability to act. MCP addresses both. It standardizes how LLMs receive context and how they execute actions on behalf of a user.
Earlier integrations often relied on broad, system-level credentials. MCP enables user-context actions with better traceability-but it introduces new governance requirements. The conversation shifts from "what can the model see?" to "what can it do?"
Governance is moving closer to the protocol layer
Security researchers are focusing less on opportunity and more on exposure. Over-permissioned tools, untrusted MCP servers, prompt injection via connectors, and tool impersonation are real risks. One RSA session will show how an MCP flaw could enable remote code execution and a full Azure tenant takeover.
The structural risk is bigger: anyone experimenting with AI tooling can spin up MCP integrations. That expands the attack surface beyond sanctioned systems into a long tail of community-built connectors that may never be reviewed.
The adoption velocity problem
Vendors are embedding MCP to make AI features plug-and-play. Coding assistants rely on it. "Vibe coders" and power users are wiring workflows together with minimal friction. Meanwhile, AI agents are non-deterministic by design, and MCP can grant significant operational reach.
This creates a new risk profile-fast integration, expansive permissions, uneven governance. The value is clear. So is the exposure if identity, authorization, and monitoring don't keep pace.
Where MCP is already delivering value
- Incident management: pull context across systems, enrich tickets, and trigger actions
- Support operations: read tickets, assign priority, update internal trackers
- Security and IT ops: interconnect logging, file platforms, and automation tools
- Software delivery: coding assistants that fetch context, run tools, and open PRs
These use cases reduce context switching and manual data collection without massive integration projects. That's why adoption is spreading across teams-even before centralized policies are finalized.
Questions CIOs should be asking now
- Inventory: Where is MCP already in use (developer tools, assistants, vendor products)? Which teams are experimenting?
- Authority: Who can create MCP integrations and publish servers? What review is required before going live?
- Identity: Are actions executed in end-user context with least privilege? How are permissions scoped and time-bound?
- Trust: How are MCP servers authenticated? What policies govern third-party or community connectors?
- Controls: What default guardrails exist (rate limits, content filters, tool whitelists, network boundaries)?
- Monitoring: Can you attribute actions to users and tools? Are logs and prompts captured for forensics?
- Failure modes: What happens on prompt injection, tool spoofing, or auth bypass? Is there kill-switch capability?
A practical 90-day action plan
- Map usage: Identify all MCP-enabled tools, pilots, and vendor features across the org.
- Set policy: Require registration of MCP servers/tools, least-privilege defaults, and review before production use.
- Establish trust: Implement allowlists for MCP servers and tools; block unknown endpoints by default.
- Bind to identity: Enforce user-context execution, SSO integration, scoped tokens, and short-lived credentials.
- Instrument: Centralize logging of prompts, tool calls, and outcomes; enable anomaly detection on actions.
- Limit blast radius: Sandbox high-risk tools, segment networks, and apply rate limits and transaction caps.
- Exercise the plan: Run red-team tests for prompt injection and tool impersonation; verify rollback paths.
Policy shifts to consider
- Move governance closer to the protocol: Treat MCP configuration like code-versioned, reviewed, and auditable.
- Adopt a tool whitelist model: Approve known-safe tools; block everything else until reviewed.
- Define allowed actions per role: Tie MCP tool permissions to enterprise roles and business processes.
- Vendor due diligence: Require MCP security posture disclosures and incident response commitments.
Executive takeaway
MCP is becoming the control layer for how AI interacts with your environment. It lets systems talk and lets agents act. That's where value appears-and where risk concentrates.
You don't need to slow adoption. You do need identity-first controls, protocol-level governance, and production-grade monitoring that match MCP's pace of integration. Once agents can operate across your systems, the strategic question shifts from "Can AI access our environment?" to "How safely and responsibly can it operate within it?"
Related resources
Your membership also unlocks:
