Model Context Protocol (MCP) and enterprise agents
Opportunity
Standardizing how agents discover tools can speed integration work.
Risk
Unreviewed MCP servers equal unreviewed capabilities. Treat them like any dependency with credentials.
Inventory, allow-list, and monitor—same as third-party APIs.
Inventory first
Before connecting anything, list the servers, owners, and data classes. Unowned MCP endpoints are the failure mode.
In practice
Map the workflow on a whiteboard before you open a framework: inputs, systems of record, humans, and irreversible writes. If that map is fuzzy, the agent will encode the fuzz.
Pick ten to fifty real historical cases as an eval set. Include the ugly ones. Run the agent offline against them until critical fields and hard rules are acceptable. Only then connect write tools.
Ship with a pause switch, a human queue, and a weekly review of override reasons. Promote repeated overrides into rules. That loop is how production systems improve—not another prompt brainstorm.
Common failure modes
- Treating a demo on clean samples as readiness for production volume.
- One shared service account with broad write access across systems.
- No owner for the exception queue, so failures pile up as noise.
- Changing prompts and models without regression gates on real cases.
- Measuring only model latency or thumbs-up, not completed-case cost and audit completeness.
What good looks like after ninety days
The first workflow is boring: stable override rate, known failure modes, operators who trust the queue. Config changes go through review. Traces answer "what happened to this case?" without archaeology.
At that point you can add a second document type or a second agent role. Expanding before the first path is boring is how programs stall with five half-built pilots.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should we block MCP entirely?
Not necessarily. Govern it. Unknown servers with prod credentials is the failure mode.
How does Senrok use MCP?
When it fits the architecture—and only with explicit tool policy.