Verified65% confidenceTradeoffExact time
MCP's permission model is relatively coarse-grained: once a tool is registered, the agent can invoke it, lacking a context-aware risk assessment mechanism for individual calls, built-in operation rate limiting, or mandatory human approval processes.
3
Sources
65%
Confidence
Medium-term (~90 days)
Relevance
9/12/2026
First Seen
Valid until: 12/11/2026
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedIn MCP architecture, authorization decisions should not remain solely at the authentication layer but need to be pushed down to the actual execution stage of tool calls.80% similarUnverifiedIn scenarios with strict auditing requirements for tool calls, an independent MCP gateway can provide finer-grained control.79% similarUnverifiedCompared to MCP tool development, the configuration barrier for Skills is lower.77% similarUnverifiedThe value of MCP is mainly reflected in cross-cutting scenarios involving multiple models and multiple tools; for products with a single model and a small number of fixed tools, its design goals exceed actual needs.77% similarUnverifiedMCP currently remains focused on standardizing tool discovery and invocation formats, while fine-grained permission management control has not yet been incorporated into the core protocol constraints.77% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/916051API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/916051MCP
get_claim(id=916051)