Kaiza MCP Server

# ATLAS-GATE-MCP ## Enterprise Model Context Protocol Security Gateway with MCP-Only Sandbox Enforcement [](https://github.com/dylanmarriner/ATLAS-GATE-MCP-server/actions) [](https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC) [](https://nodejs.org/) [](https://github.com/dylanmarriner/ATLAS-GATE-MCP-server) [](./SECURITY.md) ## High-Level Overview ATLAS-GATE-MCP is a production-grade Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that implements enterprise-grade security governance, process-level sandbox enforcement, and comprehensive audit trails for AI agent operations. The system transforms unconstrained AI agents into governed execution authorities through a multi-layered security architecture that enforces zero-trust principles, plan-based authorization, and immutable audit logging. The system addresses the fundamental security challenge of allowing AI agents to interact with critical systems while maintaining enterprise-grade security posture, compliance requirements, and operational visibility. ATLAS-GATE-MCP serves as a security gateway that mediates all AI agent interactions with development environments, enforcing strict governance policies while providing the flexibility required for modern AI-assisted development workflows. ATLAS-GATE-MCP operates as an MCP server/gateway in modern AI infrastructure, sitting between AI models/clients and target systems (filesystems, databases, APIs, development tools). It is designed for enterprise environments where security, auditability, and compliance are non-negotiable requirements. ## MCP Fundamentals The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a standardized protocol for enabling AI models to securely interact with external systems, tools, and data sources. MCP provides a structured framework for AI agent operations that addresses the limitations of traditional integration approaches. ### Core Concepts and Terminology - **MCP Server**: A process that exposes capabilities to AI models through standardized interfaces. ATLAS-GATE-MCP is an MCP server. - **Tools**: Executable functions that AI models can invoke. Tools have defined schemas, parameters, and return values. Examples include file operations, API calls, database queries. - **Resources**: Read-only data sources that AI models can access. Resources represent static or dynamic data like configuration files, documentation, or system state. - **Prompts**: Reusable prompt templates that guide AI model behavior for specific tasks or contexts. - **Transport Layer**: Communication mechanism between AI models and MCP servers, typically JSON-RPC 2.0 over stdio or HTTP. - **Session**: A bounded interaction context between an AI model and MCP server with associated state and permissions. ### Design Philosophy MCP exists to solve fundamental architectural problems in AI agent integration: 1. **Security Isolation**: Prevents AI models from having unrestricted system access 2. **Standardization**: Provides consistent interfaces across different AI models and tools 3. **Governance**: Enables policy enforcement and audit trails for AI operations 4. **Composability**: Allows tools and capabilities to be combined safely 5. **Observability**: Provides visibility into AI agent operations and decision-making Compared to traditional APIs, MCP offers: - **Schema Validation**: All tool inputs/outputs are validated against defined schemas - **Capability Discovery**: AI models can discover available capabilities dynamically - **Security Boundaries**: Built-in authentication, authorization, and audit mechanisms - **State Management**: Proper session handling and state isolation - **Error Handling**: Structured error responses with appropriate context Compared to plugin-based systems, MCP provides: - **Protocol Standardization**: Consistent interface across different implementations - **Security Model**: Built-in security considerations rather than afterthought - **Transport Independence**: Multiple communication patterns supported - **AI-First Design**: Designed specifically for AI model interaction patterns ## Atlas-Gate Architecture ATLAS-GATE-MCP implements MCP through a multi-layered security architecture with strict separation of concerns and comprehensive enforcement mechanisms. ### Core Components - **MCP Server Core** (`server.js`): Central request handling, tool registration, and session management. Implements JSON-RPC 2.0 transport, input normalization, and request routing. - **Dual-Role System**: Two distinct operational modes with different security boundaries: - **Windsurf Role**: Execution and mutation capabilities with full audit logging - **Antigravity Role**: Read-only analysis and planning capabilities - **Tool Registry**: 17 specialized tools covering file operations, plan management, audit logging, and attestation services. Each tool implements comprehensive validation and enforcement. - **Governance Engine**: Multi-layer policy enforcement including: - Input validation with Zod schemas - Plan-based authorization checking - Static analysis for forbidden patterns - Content integrity verification - Audit trail generation - **Security Layers**: - Process-level sandbox enforcement - MCP-only operation restrictions - Session-based isolation - Cryptographic audit trails - Role-based access control ### Trust and Authorization Boundaries - **Trust Boundary 1**: Process isolation through MCP sandbox prevents direct system access - **Trust Boundary 2**: Role separation ensures read-only operations cannot mutate data - **Trust Boundary 3**: Plan authorization requires explicit approval for operations - **Trust Boundary 4**: Content validation prevents injection of malicious code - **Trust Boundary 5**: Audit logging provides non-repudiation and traceability ### Component Security Responsibilities - **Server Core**: Request validation, session management, transport security - **Tool Handlers**: Input validation, business logic enforcement, audit generation - **Governance Engine**: Policy enforcement, content analysis, authorization checking - **Audit System**: Immutable logging, tamper detection, compliance reporting - **Sandbox Layer**: Process isolation, resource restriction, capability limiting ## Architecture Diagram ```text ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ AI Models / Clients │ │ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ │ Claude │ │ Windsurf │ │ Antigravity│ │ Custom LLM │ │ │ │ Desktop │ │ IDE │ │ Analysis │ │ Integration │ │ │ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ JSON-RPC 2.0 over stdio/HTTP │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ATLAS-GATE-MCP SERVER │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ MCP Transport Layer │ │ │ │ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ Request │ │ Session │ │ Response │ │ Error │ │ │ │ │ │ Normalizer │ │ Management │ │ Formatting │ │ Handling │ │ │ │ │ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Security & Governance Layer │ │ │ │ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ Input │ │ Plan │ │ Content │ │ Audit │ │ │ │ │ │ Validation │ │ Authority │ │ Analysis │ │ Logging │ │ │ │ │ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Tool Registry │ │ │ │ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ File Ops │ │ Plan Mgmt │ │ Audit │ │ Attestation │ │ │ │ │ │ (read/write)│ │ (list/lint) │ │ (log/replay)│ │ (gen/verify)│ │ │ │ │ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Role-Based Access │ │ │ │ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ Windsurf │ │ Antigravity│ │ │ │ │ │ (Execution) │ │ (Read-Only) │ │ │ │ │ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ MCP Protocol Interface │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Backing Services & Systems │ │ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ │ Filesystem │ │ Plans Store │ │ Audit Log │ │ Database │ │ │ │ (Read/Write)│ │ (Authority) │ │ (Immutable) │ │ (Optional) │ │ │ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Security Boundaries: ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1. Process Sandbox: MCP-only execution, no direct system access 2. Role Separation: Windsurf (write) vs Antigravity (read-only) 3. Plan Authority: Operations require approved plan references 4. Content Validation: Static analysis prevents malicious code injection 5. Audit Trail: Immutable logging provides non-repudiation ``` ## How Atlas-Gate Works (Step-by-Step) ### Initialization and Startup 1. **Process Launch**: Server starts as either Windsurf or Antigravity role based on entry point 2. **Sandbox Activation**: Process-level restrictions are applied via `lockdownProcess()` and `freezeGlobalObjects()` 3. **Self-Audit**: Server analyzes its own code for governance violations before accepting connections 4. **Session Generation**: Cryptographic `SESSION_ID` is generated for audit trail correlation 5. **Transport Binding**: JSON-RPC 2.0 server binds to stdio transport for MCP communication 6. **Tool Registration**: All available tools are registered with their Zod schemas and handlers 7. **Capability Discovery**: Server publishes available capabilities to connecting clients ### Configuration and Capability Registration 1. **Role Determination**: Server capabilities are filtered based on role (Windsurf vs Antigravity) 2. **Tool Schema Definition**: Each tool defines input/output schemas using Zod for validation 3. **Permission Mapping**: Tools are mapped to required permissions and authorization levels 4. **Plan Discovery**: Available plans are scanned and cached for authorization checking 5. **Audit Configuration**: Audit logging parameters and retention policies are established ### Server Lifecycle and Request Handling 1. **Connection Acceptance**: New JSON-RPC connections are accepted and authenticated 2. **Session Initialization**: `begin_session` must be called to establish workspace context 3. **Request Reception**: JSON-RPC 2.0 requests are received via stdio transport 4. **Input Normalization**: Raw inputs are normalized to structured objects 5. **Schema Validation**: Request parameters are validated against tool schemas 6. **Authorization Checking**: Plan-based authorization is verified before execution 7. **Content Analysis**: Static analysis scans for forbidden patterns and security violations 8. **Execution**: Business logic is executed with comprehensive error handling 9. **Audit Logging**: All operations are logged with full context and cryptographic signatures 10. **Response Generation**: Structured responses are formatted and returned ### Model Discovery and Invocation of MCP Capabilities 1. **Capability Enumeration**: AI models can list available tools and their schemas 2. **Tool Selection**: Models select appropriate tools based on task requirements 3. **Parameter Preparation**: Input parameters are prepared according to tool schemas 4. **Plan Reference**: Operations must reference an approved plan for authorization 5. **Invocation**: Tools are invoked via JSON-RPC 2.0 method calls 6. **Result Processing**: Responses are parsed and integrated into model reasoning 7. **Error Handling**: Structured error responses guide model recovery strategies ### Request/Response Flow 1. **Request Reception**: JSON-RPC 2.0 call received with method, parameters, and request ID 2. **Method Resolution**: Appropriate tool handler is selected based on method name 3. **Parameter Extraction**: Parameters are extracted and type-validated 4. **Context Establishment**: Session context and workspace state are resolved 5. **Authorization Verification**: Plan-based authorization is checked and validated 6. **Pre-execution Validation**: Input sanitization and security scanning occur 7. **Business Logic Execution**: Core tool functionality is executed with error handling 8. **Post-execution Processing**: Results are formatted and audit entries are created 9. **Response Construction**: JSON-RPC 2.0 response is built with result or error 10. **Transmission**: Response is transmitted via stdio transport to client ### State Handling and Isolation 1. **Session Isolation**: Each session maintains independent state and permissions 2. **Workspace Binding**: Operations are bound to specific workspace directories 3. **Plan Context**: Authorization context is maintained throughout request lifecycle 4. **Audit Correlation**: All operations are correlated via session and request IDs 5. **Stateless Design**: Server does not maintain persistent state between requests 6. **Immutable Audit**: Audit log provides the only persistent state management ### Permission Evaluation and Enforcement 1. **Role-Based Access**: Windsurf role allows mutations, Antigravity role is read-only 2. **Plan Authorization**: Operations must reference valid, approved plans 3. **Capability Scoping**: Tools have scoped permissions based on their function 4. **Content Restrictions**: Static analysis prevents unauthorized code patterns 5. **Resource Limits**: Filesystem access is limited to authorized directories 6. **Audit Requirements**: All operations must pass audit logging requirements 7. **Failure Modes**: Security violations result in immediate operation termination ## Security and Permission Model ATLAS-GATE-MCP implements a comprehensive, defense-in-depth security model designed for enterprise environments where security, compliance, and auditability are paramount. ### Authentication Assumptions ATLAS-GATE-MCP operates under a zero-trust security model with the following authentication assumptions: **Transport Security**: Communication occurs over controlled stdio transport or authenticated HTTP channels. The protocol assumes the transport layer provides basic authentication and integrity protection. **Session Authentication**: Sessions are established via `begin_session` with workspace binding and cryptographic session identifiers. Session state is maintained server-side with proper isolation. **Plan-Based Authentication**: Operations are authenticated against approved plans stored in the governance repository. Plans serve as capability tokens that authorize specific operations within defined scopes. **Bootstrap Authentication**: Initial system setup requires bootstrap secret authentication for creating the first governance plans. This secret is single-use and destroyed after initial configuration. ### Authorization and Permission Boundaries The authorization model implements multiple, overlapping permission boundaries: **Role-Based Authorization**: - **Windsurf Role**: Full execution capabilities including file writes, plan creation, and system modifications - **Antigravity Role**: Read-only capabilities including file reads, plan inspection, and analysis operations - **Role Separation**: Strict enforcement prevents privilege escalation between roles **Plan-Based Authorization**: - **Plan Reference**: All operations must reference an approved plan ID - **Scope Validation**: Operations are validated against plan-defined scopes and constraints - **Hash Verification**: Plan integrity is verified via cryptographic hashes - **Temporal Validity**: Plans may include temporal constraints and expiration **Capability-Based Authorization**: - **Tool Scoping**: Each tool has defined capabilities and required permissions - **Parameter Validation**: Tool parameters are validated against schemas and security policies - **Resource Access**: Filesystem and resource access is limited to authorized paths - **Operation Constraints**: Specific operations may have additional constraints (e.g., file size limits) ### Access Control Mechanisms **MCP-Only Enforcement**: - Process sandbox prevents direct system access - All operations must go through MCP tool interfaces - Filesystem access is mediated through authorized tools only - Network access is blocked by default with explicit allowances **Content Security**: - Static analysis prevents injection of malicious code patterns - Stub detection prevents deployment of incomplete or placeholder code - Policy enforcement blocks prohibited constructs and practices - Content integrity verification ensures file consistency **Audit and Compliance**: - Comprehensive audit logging captures all operations with full context - Cryptographic signatures ensure audit log integrity - Tamper detection mechanisms prevent audit log manipulation - Compliance reporting supports regulatory requirements ### Data Exposure and Capability Escalation Prevention **Data Isolation**: - Session-based isolation prevents cross-session data leakage - Workspace binding limits operations to authorized directories - Path traversal protection prevents unauthorized file access - Content filtering prevents sensitive data exposure in responses **Capability Escalation Prevention**: - Role separation prevents read-to-write privilege escalation - Plan authorization prevents unauthorized capability acquisition - Tool scoping limits operations to defined boundaries - Static analysis prevents privilege escalation through code injection **Least Privilege Enforcement**: - Default-deny security posture with explicit authorization - Minimal required permissions for each operation - Time-limited authorization tokens where applicable - Revocation capabilities for compromised sessions or plans ### Design Principles **Zero Trust**: Never trust, always verify. All operations require explicit authorization regardless of source. **Fail-Secure**: Security violations result in operation termination rather than risky fallbacks. **Defense in Depth**: Multiple, overlapping security controls ensure no single point of failure. **Audit by Design**: All operations are auditable by design with comprehensive logging and integrity protection. **Least Privilege**: Operations are granted minimal necessary permissions with scoped access. **Transparency**: Security decisions are logged and auditable with clear reasoning and evidence. ## MCP Capabilities in Atlas-Gate ATLAS-GATE-MCP implements comprehensive MCP primitives with enterprise-grade security extensions. ### Supported MCP Primitives **Tools**: 17 specialized tools covering core operations: - **File Operations**: `read_file`, `write_file` with comprehensive validation - **Plan Management**: `list_plans`, `lint_plan`, `bootstrap_tool` for governance - **Audit Operations**: `read_audit_log`, `replay_execution`, `verify_workspace_integrity` - **Attestation**: `generate_attestation_bundle`, `verify_attestation_bundle`, `export_attestation_bundle` - **Session Management**: `begin_session`, `read_prompt` for session initialization **Resources**: Read-only access to system state and configuration: - **Plan Resources**: Approved governance plans and their metadata - **Audit Resources**: Historical audit logs and compliance data - **Configuration Resources**: System configuration and security policies - **Documentation Resources**: System documentation and operational guides **Prompts**: Reusable prompt templates for common operations: - **Planning Prompts**: Templates for creating and validating governance plans - **Analysis Prompts**: Templates for security analysis and compliance checking - **Operational Prompts**: Templates for common operational tasks ### Security Extensions **Enhanced Validation**: All inputs undergo comprehensive security validation beyond standard MCP schema validation: - Static analysis for security patterns - Content integrity verification - Policy compliance checking - Threat pattern detection **Audit Integration**: All operations are integrated with the audit system: - Pre-execution audit logging - Post-execution result capture - Cryptographic signature generation - Tamper-evident storage **Authorization Extensions**: Plan-based authorization extends standard MCP capabilities: - Capability token management - Scope-based access control - Temporal authorization constraints - Revocation and renewal mechanisms ### Extensibility and Interoperability **Tool Registration**: New tools can be registered with comprehensive security validation: - Schema definition and validation - Security policy integration - Audit logging integration - Authorization mapping **Protocol Compatibility**: Full MCP protocol compliance ensures interoperability: - Standard JSON-RPC 2.0 transport - Compliant tool and resource definitions - Standard error handling and response formats - Capability discovery mechanisms **Integration Points**: Well-defined interfaces for system integration: - Authentication provider interfaces - Authorization system hooks - Audit log consumers - Monitoring and alerting endpoints ### Differentiation from Other MCP Servers **Enterprise Security Focus**: Unlike development-focused MCP servers, ATLAS-GATE-MCP prioritizes security, compliance, and auditability over flexibility. **Governance Integration**: Built-in plan-based governance system provides structured authorization lacking in standard MCP implementations. **Comprehensive Auditing**: Immutable, cryptographically-signed audit trails exceed standard MCP logging capabilities. **Process Isolation**: MCP-only sandbox enforcement provides stronger isolation than typical MCP server implementations. **Static Analysis Integration**: Real-time code analysis and security scanning are unique capabilities not found in standard MCP servers. ## Usage Overview ### Primary Use Cases **Enterprise AI Development**: Secure AI-assisted development in regulated environments where code quality, security, and compliance are mandatory. **Compliance-Driven Development**: Development workflows requiring comprehensive audit trails, change approval, and regulatory compliance documentation. **High-Security Environments**: Development of security-critical systems where code injection, privilege escalation, and data leakage must be prevented. **Multi-Tenant Development**: Shared development environments where strict isolation and auditability between teams and projects are required. **Governed AI Operations**: Organizations requiring structured approval processes for AI-assisted operations with clear accountability and traceability. ### Typical Deployment Scenarios **Development Gateway**: ATLAS-GATE-MCP deployed as a gateway between AI development tools and code repositories, enforcing governance policies and maintaining audit trails. **Compliance Enforcement**: Integration with compliance systems to ensure all AI-assisted development meets regulatory requirements and organizational policies. **Security Monitoring**: Integration with security operations centers to monitor AI agent activities and detect potential security violations. **Audit and Forensics**: Providing comprehensive audit trails for incident response, forensic analysis, and compliance reporting. ### Target Users **Platform Engineers**: Responsible for maintaining secure development infrastructure and ensuring compliance with organizational policies. **Security Engineers**: Focused on preventing security vulnerabilities, maintaining audit trails, and ensuring secure AI operations. **Compliance Officers**: Ensuring development activities meet regulatory requirements and organizational standards. **Development Teams**: Using AI assistance while maintaining security, quality, and compliance standards. **DevOps Engineers**: Integrating AI-assisted development into CI/CD pipelines with proper governance and monitoring. ### When to Use Atlas-Gate **Use Atlas-Gate when**: - Enterprise-grade security is non-negotiable - Comprehensive audit trails are required - Regulatory compliance must be maintained - Multiple teams share development resources - AI assistance is needed but must be tightly controlled - Code quality and security standards must be enforced - Change approval processes are required **Consider alternatives when**: - Development speed is the primary concern over security - Simple, single-developer projects without compliance requirements - Experimental development where flexibility is more important than governance - Organizations without established security and compliance frameworks ## How Atlas-Gate Compares to Alternatives ### Traditional REST/GraphQL APIs **Security Model**: - **REST/GraphQL**: Typically rely on network-level security (TLS, API keys) with application-level authorization - **Atlas-Gate**: Multi-layer security with process isolation, content validation, and comprehensive audit trails **State Management**: - **REST/GraphQL**: Often stateless or require explicit session management - **Atlas-Gate**: Built-in session management with cryptographic isolation and audit correlation **Schema Validation**: - **REST/GraphQL**: Schema validation varies by implementation; often optional - **Atlas-Gate**: Mandatory schema validation with Zod and additional security scanning **AI Integration**: - **REST/GraphQL**: Not designed for AI model interaction patterns - **Atlas-Gate**: Specifically designed for AI model interaction with appropriate error handling and response formats **Compliance**: - **REST/GraphQL**: Audit logging must be implemented manually - **Atlas-Gate**: Comprehensive, immutable audit trails built into the protocol ### Plugin-based LLM Systems **Security Boundaries**: - **Plugin Systems**: Often rely on plugin developer security practices; vulnerabilities can affect entire system - **Atlas-Gate**: Process-level isolation prevents plugin vulnerabilities from affecting system security **Update Mechanisms**: - **Plugin Systems**: Dynamic loading can introduce security risks and version conflicts - **Atlas-Gate**: Static tool registration with comprehensive validation prevents runtime security issues **Authorization**: - **Plugin Systems**: Authorization varies by plugin implementation - **Atlas-Gate**: Consistent, plan-based authorization across all capabilities **Audit Trail**: - **Plugin Systems**: Audit logging is inconsistent across plugins - **Atlas-Gate**: Uniform, comprehensive audit trail for all operations ### Agent Frameworks with Embedded Tools **Tool Isolation**: - **Agent Frameworks**: Tools often run in same process as agent, increasing attack surface - **Atlas-Gate**: Process isolation and sandbox enforcement provide stronger security boundaries **Governance**: - **Agent Frameworks**: Governance varies by implementation; often lacks enterprise-grade controls - **Atlas-Gate**: Built-in governance system with plan-based authorization and compliance features **Scalability**: - **Agent Frameworks**: Often designed for single-agent scenarios - **Atlas-Gate**: Designed for multi-agent, multi-session enterprise environments **Compliance**: - **Agent Frameworks**: Compliance features vary; often inadequate for regulated environments - **Atlas-Gate**: Enterprise-grade compliance features with comprehensive audit trails ### Other MCP Servers **Security Focus**: - **Other MCP Servers**: Often prioritize flexibility and ease of use over security - **Atlas-Gate**: Security-first design with comprehensive enforcement mechanisms **Governance Integration**: - **Other MCP Servers**: Limited or no governance capabilities - **Atlas-Gate**: Built-in plan-based governance system with approval workflows **Audit Capabilities**: - **Other MCP Servers**: Basic logging capabilities - **Atlas-Gate**: Comprehensive, cryptographically-signed audit trails with tamper detection **Enterprise Features**: - **Other MCP Servers**: Often designed for development or experimental use - **Atlas-Gate**: Designed specifically for enterprise production environments ## Design Decisions and Tradeoffs ### Key Architectural Choices **MCP-Only Sandbox Enforcement**: - **Decision**: Restrict all operations to MCP protocol interfaces - **Rationale**: Prevents direct system access and ensures all operations are auditable - **Tradeoff**: Reduced flexibility for significantly improved security posture **Plan-Based Authorization**: - **Decision**: Require all operations to reference approved governance plans - **Rationale**: Provides structured authorization and change approval processes - **Tradeoff**: Additional complexity for improved governance and compliance **Static Analysis Integration**: - **Decision**: Scan all content for security patterns before execution - **Rationale**: Prevents injection of malicious code and policy violations - **Tradeoff**: Performance overhead for enhanced security assurance **Immutable Audit Trails**: - **Decision**: Maintain cryptographically-signed, tamper-evident audit logs - **Rationale**: Provides non-repudiation and compliance support - **Tradeoff**: Storage overhead and complexity for audit integrity ### Constraints and Limitations **Performance Considerations**: - Static analysis and content validation add latency to operations - Comprehensive audit logging generates significant data volume - Process isolation introduces communication overhead **Scalability Limitations**: - Single-server architecture limits horizontal scaling - Session state management constrains concurrent operations - File-based audit storage has performance implications **Operational Complexity**: - Plan governance requires administrative overhead - Security configuration requires specialized knowledge - Audit management and retention policies add operational burden **Flexibility Constraints**: - Strict security policies limit certain development patterns - Plan-based authorization can slow rapid iteration - MCP-only restriction prevents direct system integration ### Non-Goals **General-Purpose Server**: ATLAS-GATE-MCP is not designed to replace general-purpose application servers or API gateways. **Development Speed Optimization**: The system prioritizes security and compliance over development velocity. **Multi-Protocol Support**: Focus on MCP protocol rather than supporting multiple integration protocols. **Real-time Performance**: Not optimized for high-frequency, low-latency operations typical of trading systems or real-time analytics. **Dynamic Configuration**: Runtime reconfiguration is limited to maintain security guarantees. ## Future Directions / Roadmap ### Plausible Future Enhancements **Distributed Architecture**: Multi-server deployment with load balancing and horizontal scaling capabilities. **Database Integration**: Support for external databases for audit storage and session management. **Advanced Authentication**: Integration with enterprise authentication systems (LDAP, SAML, OAuth2). **Policy Engine**: Rule-based policy engine for more sophisticated authorization decisions. **Performance Optimization**: Caching mechanisms and optimized static analysis for improved performance. **Monitoring Integration**: Enhanced monitoring and alerting integration with enterprise observability platforms. **Compliance Automation**: Automated compliance reporting and regulatory requirement mapping. ### Areas of Exploration **Machine Learning Integration**: ML-based anomaly detection for security threat identification. **Advanced Threat Protection**: Integration with threat intelligence feeds and automated response capabilities. **Cross-Platform Support**: Support for additional operating systems and deployment environments. **Protocol Extensions**: Extensions to MCP protocol for enhanced security and governance features. **Community Ecosystem**: Development of additional tools and integrations by the community. **Enterprise Features**: Additional enterprise-specific features like role-based administration and advanced reporting. ### Long-Term Direction **Standardization Leadership**: Active participation in MCP protocol standardization and security best practices development. **Ecosystem Development**: Growth of a partner ecosystem for integrations and complementary tools. **Compliance Expansion**: Support for additional regulatory frameworks and compliance requirements. **Security Innovation**: Continued innovation in AI security and governance mechanisms. **Performance Evolution**: Ongoing performance optimization while maintaining security guarantees. ## Glossary **MCP (Model Context Protocol)**: Standardized protocol for AI model interaction with external systems, tools, and data sources. **Atlas-Gate**: Enterprise MCP server implementing security governance, sandbox enforcement, and comprehensive audit trails. **Windsurf Role**: Atlas-Gate operational mode with execution and mutation capabilities, including file writes and system modifications. **Antigravity Role**: Atlas-Gate operational mode with read-only capabilities for analysis and planning operations. **Plan**: Governance document that defines authorization scopes, constraints, and approval requirements for operations. **Tool**: Executable function exposed through MCP interface with defined schemas and security policies. **Resource**: Read-only data source accessible through MCP interface with proper authorization. **Session**: Bounded interaction context between AI model and Atlas-Gate server with associated state and permissions. **Audit Trail**: Comprehensive, immutable log of all operations with cryptographic integrity protection. **Sandbox**: Process-level isolation mechanism that restricts operations to MCP protocol interfaces only. **Static Analysis**: Automated code scanning for security patterns, policy violations, and prohibited constructs. **Stub Detection**: Identification of incomplete, placeholder, or non-production code patterns. **Authorization**: Process of verifying that operations are permitted based on roles, plans, and security policies. **Governance**: System of rules, policies, and procedures for controlling and monitoring AI agent operations. **Compliance**: Adherence to regulatory requirements, organizational policies, and industry standards. **Zero Trust**: Security model that assumes no implicit trust and requires verification for all operations. **Least Privilege**: Security principle of granting minimal necessary permissions for required operations. **Non-repudiation**: Assurance that operations cannot be denied by their performers, typically through audit trails. **Tamper-evident**: Property that unauthorized modifications to data or systems can be detected. **Capability Token**: Authorization credential that grants specific permissions within defined scopes. **Content Integrity**: Assurance that content has not been altered in unauthorized ways. **Policy Enforcement**: Automated application of security policies and governance rules. **Transport Layer**: Communication mechanism between AI models and MCP servers, typically JSON-RPC 2.0. **Schema Validation**: Verification that input data conforms to defined structure and type requirements. **Session Isolation**: Separation of state and permissions between different concurrent sessions. **Workspace Binding**: Association of operations with specific workspace directories for security and organization. **Cryptographic Signature**: Digital signature used to verify authenticity and integrity of audit entries. **Threat Pattern**: Recognized pattern of malicious or unauthorized activity that security systems should detect. **Enterprise Grade**: Security and reliability standards suitable for large organizational deployment. **Production Ready**: System state appropriate for live operational use with proper security, monitoring, and support.