mcp-opa-authz
Provides tools for querying authorization decisions from an OpenID AuthZEN-compliant Policy Decision Point (PDP). Supports single access evaluations (subject/action/resource) over POST /access/v1/evaluation, batched evaluations with execute_all / deny_on_first_deny / permit_on_first_permit semantics, and PDP metadata discovery via /.well-known/authzen-configuration. Correlates decisions with PDP logs through X-Request-ID, validating AuthZEN's subject/action/resource information model before sending, and treating missing decisions or authentication failures as errors rather than denials.
This server does not currently have a deployable release on Glama. Follow the repository's setup instructions to install and configure it for your MCP client, including any required credentials and local dependencies.
mcp-opa-authz
Stop letting your agent guess at authorization. This is an MCP server that answers "is this allowed?" from real policy code — either Rego you hand it, or the OpenID AuthZEN 1.0 PDP that actually governs your system.
Ask a model whether Alice may delete that document and it will produce a confident, plausible, unfalsifiable answer. Give it these tools and the answer comes from the policy.
brew install kanywst/tap/mcp-opa-authz
# or, without Homebrew:
go install github.com/kanywst/mcp-opa-authz@latest
claude mcp add opa-authz -- mcp-opa-authzThat is enough for evaluate_policy. Point it at a PDP to get the rest:
claude mcp add opa-authz \
--env AUTHZEN_PDP_URL=http://localhost:8181/access/v1/evaluation \
-- mcp-opa-authzTwo layers, same question
Tool | Answers | Needs |
| "What does this Rego say?" Evaluated in-process by OPA. | Nothing external |
| "What does the PDP that governs this system say?" | A reachable PDP |
| The same, over a list — which of these may the subject touch? | A reachable PDP |
| "Who may…", "which resources may…", "what may…" — the PDP lists what is permitted. | A PDP with the Search APIs |
| "Which endpoints does this PDP offer?" | A reachable PDP |
Use evaluate_policy while authoring or debugging a policy you have the source of. Use authzen_evaluate when the decision has to come from production, not from a policy pasted into the chat. The server's MCP instructions tell the model the same thing, so it usually picks correctly on its own.
Related MCP server: enterprise-auth-mcp-server
What makes this different from opa eval in a shell tool
An agent given shell access can already run opa eval. What it cannot do is get an answer it is allowed to trust:
Undefined is not false. A Rego query with no matching rule and no default returns
[]. Every model reads that as a deny.evaluate_policyreturnsdefinedalongsidevalue, so "the policy denied" and "the policy has no opinion" stop being the same answer.A PDP that did not answer is not a deny. AuthZEN makes
decisiona required member. A response missing it decodes into a Goboolasfalse— a broken PDP would look like a strict one. This server treats a missingdecisionas a failure, never as a deny. Same for a 401: that means this server failed to authenticate, not that the subject was denied, and the error says so.The policy runs in a sandbox. Rego handed to an MCP server was written by a model, from text that may have come from a web page. OPA's
http.sendwould let that policy make arbitrary HTTP requests from your laptop, andopa.runtime()would hand it your environment. Both are compiled out. See Security.Batch decisions carry their index.
permit_on_first_permitlegitimately returns fewer decisions than you sent. Zipping the arrays would attach a decision to the wrong resource.An empty search is not a failed search.
results: []means nothing is permitted; a response with noresultsmember, or a result of the wrong entity type, is an error.
Demo
Debugging a policy that is denying when it should not:
> Why is bob getting denied on doc-1? Here's the policy and the input.
evaluate_policy(rego=…, query="data.rbac.allow", input_json=…, trace=true)
{
"defined": true,
"value": false,
"printed": ["checking roles for", "bob"],
"trace": [
"Enter data.rbac.allow",
"| Eval some role in roles[input.user]",
"| Fail roles[\"bob\"]",
…
]
}
Bob has no entry in `roles` at all — the rule never reaches the permission
check. Adding "bob": {"viewer"} fixes it.Then confirming against the PDP that actually runs:
> Does production agree?
authzen_evaluate(subject={"type":"user","id":"bob"}, …)
{ "decision": false, "context": { "reason": "no role binding" },
"request_id": "3f9c…", "pdp_url": "https://pdp.internal/access/v1/evaluation" }Tools
evaluate_policy
Param | Required | Description |
| yes | Rego source with a |
| yes | Rego query, e.g. |
| no | JSON-encoded |
| no | JSON-encoded base document for the |
| no |
|
| no | Return a pretty-printed evaluation trace. Verbose; bounded at 4000 events, 200 lines, 1 KiB per line. |
Returns defined, value, the raw OPA result_set (omitted with result_set_omitted past 256 KiB encoded), any print() output (200 lines of 1 KiB), and the trace when asked for.
authzen_evaluate
Param | Required | Description |
| yes | JSON object. AuthZEN requires |
| yes | JSON object. AuthZEN requires |
| yes | JSON object. AuthZEN requires |
| no | JSON object with runtime context (IP, time, MFA strength). |
| no | Override |
Returns decision, the PDP's context if any, the pdp_url that answered, and the request_id sent as X-Request-ID — so a decision in a transcript can be found in the PDP's logs.
authzen_evaluate_batch
Same arguments, plus evaluations (a JSON array whose entries override the top-level defaults) and evaluations_semantic (execute_all, deny_on_first_deny, permit_on_first_permit). Capped at 100 entries per call. Without pdp_url, the endpoint is the access_evaluations_endpoint the PDP advertises in its metadata, or /access/v1/evaluations under the root of AUTHZEN_PDP_URL when it advertises none — the same resolution, cache and same-origin rule as authzen_search. endpoint_source in the result says which was used.
{
"subject": "{\"type\":\"user\",\"id\":\"alice\"}",
"action": "{\"name\":\"read\"}",
"evaluations": "[{\"resource\":{\"type\":\"doc\",\"id\":\"1\"}},{\"resource\":{\"type\":\"doc\",\"id\":\"2\"}}]"
}authzen_search
The AuthZEN Search APIs. search picks which entity is being listed; that entity carries only its type.
| Asks |
|
|
|
| Who may do this to that resource? |
| required |
|
| Which resources of a type may the subject act on? |
| required |
|
| What may the subject do to the resource? |
| must be omitted |
|
context, pdp_url, page_limit and page_token are optional. Without pdp_url, the endpoint is the one the PDP advertises in its metadata (search_subject_endpoint etc.), as the specification requires, falling back to the default path (/access/v1/search/{subject,resource,action}) under the root of AUTHZEN_PDP_URL when it has no usable metadata. The metadata is cached per PDP for five minutes, and endpoint_source in the result says which one was used. An advertised endpoint has to be on the PDP's own origin, because the PDP token goes with the request; a cross-origin one is refused unless passed explicitly as pdp_url. Returns results, has_more and next_page_token; pass the token back as page_token, with every other argument unchanged, for the next page. A response whose page object has no next_token is an error even though the specification's own example has one: without it nothing says whether the list is complete.
{
"search": "resource",
"subject": "{\"type\":\"user\",\"id\":\"alice\"}",
"action": "{\"name\":\"read\"}",
"resource": "{\"type\":\"document\"}"
}authzen_discover
Fetches /.well-known/authzen-configuration from a PDP root. pdp_url may be a root or an evaluation endpoint — the known AuthZEN path suffix is stripped. For a PDP mounted under a prefix, the well-known string goes between the host and the prefix, as RFC 8615 and the specification place it (https://gw.example.com/.well-known/authzen-configuration/pdp); the older appended form (…/pdp/.well-known/authzen-configuration) is tried if that 404s. A document whose policy_decision_point is not the root it was fetched from is rejected, as the specification requires.
Standards conformance
Implements Authorization API 1.0, approved as an OpenID Final Specification in January 2026:
Section | Status |
Access Evaluation ( |
|
Access Evaluations, batch ( |
|
PDP Metadata ( |
|
Subject / Action / Resource information model | Required members validated before the request is sent |
| Sent on every call, returned in the result |
Search APIs (subject / resource / action, with pagination) |
|
Related work worth knowing about: the AuthZEN working group's COAZ profile binds AuthZEN to MCP tool calls themselves, so a gateway can authorize tools/call with an x-authzen-mapping declared in a tool's inputSchema. That is the enforcement side of the same problem — this server is the inspection side, and the two compose.
Configuration
Variable | Default | Description |
| — | Default Access Evaluation endpoint. |
| — |
|
|
| Per-request timeout. |
|
| Response read limit. |
|
| Wall-clock limit on one Rego evaluation. |
|
| Per-argument size limit. |
|
| Re-enable the network built-ins. See below. |
A malformed value stops the server at startup rather than being silently replaced by the default — a bound an operator believes is in place should be in place.
Security
evaluate_policy compiles and runs Rego that a model produced, inside this process. Three OPA built-ins are removed from the capability set for that reason:
Built-in | Why |
| Arbitrary HTTP from wherever the server runs — a laptop or CI runner, inside whatever network boundary that sits behind. It is the whole SSRF surface, and it contradicts the tool's own description. |
| Enough to exfiltrate |
| Returns the runtime configuration, including the process environment and every credential in it. |
Time, JWT, UUID and random built-ins are untouched — those appear in real authorization policies. A policy using a removed built-in fails to compile with a message naming it, and pointing at MCP_OPA_ALLOW_NETWORK_BUILTINS for the cases where you genuinely want it.
The PDP client is constrained too: pdp_url must be an absolute http(s) URL with a host and no userinfo, redirects are refused rather than followed with the Authorization header attached, responses are read through a byte cap, and PDP error bodies are truncated before they reach the model's context.
Reporting a vulnerability: see SECURITY.md.
Running it
From source
make smokeBuilds the binary, stands up a fake AuthZEN PDP, drives one real MCP stdio session through all five tools, and asserts each answered — including that http.send is still rejected. No MCP client and no real PDP needed.
Container
docker run -i --rm \
-e AUTHZEN_PDP_URL=https://pdp.example.com/access/v1/evaluation \
ghcr.io/kanywst/mcp-opa-authzCursor and other MCP clients
{
"mcpServers": {
"opa-authz": {
"command": "mcp-opa-authz",
"env": { "AUTHZEN_PDP_URL": "http://localhost:8181/access/v1/evaluation" }
}
}
}A local opa-authzen-plugin on :8181 works as the PDP. So does Topaz, Cerbos, Keycloak with its experimental AuthZEN support, or anything else on the interop list.
Examples
examples/ has reference Rego policies for evaluate_policy:
rbac.rego— role to permission mappingabac.rego— clearance level comparisonk8s_admission.rego— admission control: required labels
Layout
Flat on purpose. A single-binary MCP server does not need cmd/, internal/ or pkg/.
main.go server bootstrap, CLI, tool registration
config.go environment, bounds, defaults
args.go tool argument decoding
tool_opa.go evaluate_policy
opa_capabilities.go the Rego sandbox
authzen.go AuthZEN 1.0 wire types and PDP client
tool_authzen.go authzen_evaluate, _batch, _discover
tool_authzen_search.go authzen_search
scripts/smoke.sh end-to-end MCP sessionVerifying a release
Releases ship a cosign-signed checksum file (Sigstore keyless via GitHub OIDC) and a CycloneDX SBOM per archive. The signature and its certificate travel together in one Sigstore bundle, *-checksums.txt.sigstore.json.
TAG=v0.3.0
gh release download "$TAG" -R kanywst/mcp-opa-authz -p '*-checksums.txt*'
cosign verify-blob \
--bundle "mcp-opa-authz-${TAG#v}-checksums.txt.sigstore.json" \
--certificate-identity-regexp 'https://github.com/kanywst/mcp-opa-authz/.github/workflows/release.yml@refs/tags/' \
--certificate-oidc-issuer 'https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com' \
"mcp-opa-authz-${TAG#v}-checksums.txt"Then check the archive you downloaded against that file:
sha256sum -c "mcp-opa-authz-${TAG#v}-checksums.txt" --ignore-missingContributing
Issues and pull requests are welcome — see CONTRIBUTING.md. Good first contributions: another example policy, a PDP this has not been tried against, or a gap against the AuthZEN text.
This repo is the merge of the former 0-draft/mcp-opa and 0-draft/mcp-authzen. Both histories are preserved here.
License
MIT. See LICENSE.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Loading tool schema changelog…
This server cannot be deployed
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for mandates, delegation, policy-gated execution, credential grants, and audit.
The Stytch MCP server is a reference implementation that demonstrates remote MCP server authentication and authorization using Stytch Connected Apps. It provides OAuth 2.1-compliant authorization (including PKCE), Dynamic Client Registration, and validates Stytch-issued access tokens to enable AI agents to securely interact with external services through permissioned access, supporting scopes like openid, email, profile, and manage:project_data.
MCP server for your apps' tools and custom tools, plus hosted AI agents and approval-gated workflows
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP Server for AI agent identity and authorization. Create, verify, and manage agent identities with trust scores and scoped authorization tokens.21 PyPIMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for enterprise authentication and authorization — JWT validation, OIDC token inspection, OAuth 2.0 introspection, and role-based access control for AI agents.8MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to discover and execute tools via a secure MCP server with JWT authentication, RBAC, rate limiting, and audit logging.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enforces runtime governance on AI agent actions — file access, command execution, delegation chains, and permission escalation.MIT