Where the workflow shifted
Searches around MCP authorization, OAuth 2.1, dynamic client registration, and protected resource metadata show that teams have moved from 'can it connect' to 'can it connect safely'.
If an MCP server is exposed to external teams, the public page should explain the authorization server, resource identifier, token use, 401 behavior, and permission boundaries.
Tool names are not outcomes
The signal matters when it changes how a team ships, reviews, or recovers work, not when it only names another tool.
Check permissions and failure
- Add one authorization card per MCP server: who authorizes, who receives the token, token scope, 401 and 403 behavior, and revocation path
- Keep the test narrow: one low-risk task or tool entry before connecting permissions, logs, failure handling, and human takeover to production
What still needs proof
If the auth model is unclear, MCP looks open in demos and risky in production. Keep the original source open so the announcement, the evidence, and this site's interpretation stay separate.