MCP governance diagnostic · browser-only scoring · no login · routes into ACT Tier 2 Professional
MCP governance approval gate

MCP Server Approval Gate

Decide in under 4 minutes whether an MCP server belongs in sandbox, formal review, or the reject pile.

3–4 minutes 12 scored questions No login

This is a governance gate for MCP servers. It is not a code scanner, malware verdict, penetration test, or gateway replacement.

  • Screens source trust, authorization model, tool blast radius, data exposure, logging, credentials, rollback, and approval workflow maturity.
  • Separates governable MCP servers from opaque servers that should stay out of production.
  • Routes directly into ACT Tier 2 policy, evidence, lifecycle, and vendor-governance assets instead of generating a free approval artifact.
Enterprise approval gate for MCP servers showing trust boundary review, authorization checks, logging, credential control, and rollback readiness.
MCP server approval triage across provenance, authorization, evidence, credentials, and lifecycle control.
MCP review gate

This is a governance gate for MCP servers. It is not a code scanner, malware verdict, penetration test, or gateway replacement.

Interactive screen

Assessment

Use this to classify a proposed MCP server as approvable with standard controls, sandbox-only, hold for governance review, or reject.

Question 1 of 12 0% complete
Question 1 of 12

What this result should change

The purpose of this screen is to classify MCP approval posture quickly, highlight the biggest gaps, and route the organization to the correct next step without giving away the paid implementation layer.

What this tool evaluates about an MCP server

It evaluates whether a proposed MCP server is governable from an approval and lifecycle standpoint, including provenance, authorization, testing, credentials, logging, rollback, and approval workflow discipline.

What a sandbox-only result does not mean

Sandbox only does not automatically mean the server is malicious. It means the evidence and control posture are too weak for normal enterprise rollout.

Why the paid bridge is ACT Tier 2

The missing value is a repeatable MCP approval workflow, retained evidence, lifecycle controls, and policy linkage. That sits in ACT Tier 2, not in a free triage page.

Where to go next

Use the paid bridge when the screening result shows structural control gaps that need policy, procedure, evidence, lifecycle discipline, and implementation ownership rather than another free quiz.

This page is informational only. It does not provide legal advice, compliance certification, or an audit conclusion.

MCP Server Approval Gate FAQ

What does this tool evaluate about an MCP server?
It evaluates maintainer trust, authorization model, tool scope, data exposure, sandbox testing, logging, credential handling, ownership, and approval workflow maturity for a proposed MCP server.
Does a sandbox-only result mean the server is malicious?
No. It means the evidence or control posture is not strong enough for standard enterprise rollout. The next step is controlled testing and stronger approval evidence, not automatic trust.
Why are authorization and rollback weighted so heavily?
Because a server with weak authorization or no reliable rollback path can expand blast radius quickly, especially when it exposes write actions, sensitive data, or shared credentials.
Why is a formal approval workflow necessary for MCP?
Because experimental MCP adoption is not the same thing as enterprise approval. A formal workflow creates retained evidence, owner accountability, and repeatable decisions across server requests.
Does this tool store anything I enter?
No. The assessment runs entirely in the browser. Answers are not stored, synced, or submitted to a server.