5 posts tagged with "Architecture"

The "Hello World" phase of the Model Context Protocol is over.

As enterprises move from experimental chatbots to production-grade agentic systems, they are hitting the invisible walls of scale: token bloat, latency, governance, and discovery. What works for ten tools fails catastrophically at ten thousand.

Your MCP just became a memory hog. And it’s quietly burning your budget.

If your Model Context Protocol (MCP) catalog is growing into the hundreds—or thousands—of tools, you’re already facing the next invisible scalability wall: token bloat.

And it’s not a theory anymore.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of the Model Context Protocol (MCP), architects are facing a critical decision: how to secure and govern connections between AI clients and a sprawling ecosystem of tools and data servers.

The traditional answer is a Gateway—a centralized proxy that inspects every byte. The modern answer is a Connect Authority—a distributed Zero Trust model that separates permission from traffic.

The MCP Registry is designed as a centralized catalog and metadata service for MCP (Model Context Protocol) components. It provides discovery, verification, and governance capabilities for MCP clients and servers. The HAPI MCP Registry does not proxy traffic; instead, it acts as a mcp connection authority, issuing short-lived mcp connect descriptor tokens that authorize clients to connect directly to MCP Servers.

In the world of MCP (Model Context Protocol), two architectural patterns often come up for discussion: using a Registry as a Connect Authority versus deploying a traditional Gateway. While both approaches aim to manage and secure connections between clients and servers, they do so in fundamentally different ways.

In this article, we will explore why the MCP Registry + Connect Authority model often outperforms the traditional Gateway approach.