Where the workflow shifted
Remote MCP, connectors, search and fetch tools, and trusted-server demand all point to the same question: which server should a team trust with production data and tool access?
Tool vendors should not stop at 'works with ChatGPT'. They need to explain tool shape, read-only versus write scope, data minimization, and why the server is safe to connect.
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
- Reduce every public MCP offer to the smallest useful tool set and document read/write scope, allowed tools, and third-party data risks
- 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
Too many tools and vague descriptions make prompt-injection and over-collection worries feel justified. Keep the original source open so the announcement, the evidence, and this site's interpretation stay separate.