Bringing the Power of MCP Servers to Your Team
In this blog
Generative AI has become an integral part of modern workflows, transforming how teams approach documentation, code development and decision-making processes. While these AI systems already offer significant value on their own, additional tooling can make them even more powerful. Last year, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) [1] was introduced as a standard interface for connecting AI systems with customized behaviors, providing three key capabilities:
1. Resources: Read-only access to contextual information such as documentation, code repositories, wikis, and knowledge bases
2. Prompts: Parameterized, versioned prompt templates with metadata
3. Tools: Callable actions that may have side effects (create ticket, query prod, roll back)
Check out this AI Proving Ground podcast episode to learn even more about MCP.
Over 5,000 MCP servers currently exist, and new servers are published every day. This rapid expansion suggests that MCP servers are easy to build and meet a significant need [2]. Generative AI, for all its power, is limited because it lacks context about your team's work and how to act on your behalf.
Modern teams can have complex workflows that could be transformed by the power of generative AI coupled with MCP servers. Let's explore the specific ways teams can leverage MCP servers to enhance collaboration, streamline knowledge sharing and automate routine tasks.
Context engineering—the systematic design, curation and delivery of the right knowledge to AI systems—ensures models receive precise, timely and governed inputs. MCP servers operationalize context engineering by standardizing how documentation, prompts and tools are exposed to LLMs [3][4].
Key use cases for team MCP servers
Several key use cases deliver significant value for teams, addressing common collaboration challenges and providing clear benefits that justify the investment.
1. Documentation management with MCP servers
Teams already capture vast amounts of knowledge across a range of tools and services. For an individual on a team, it is a challenge to find the right information when needed. Documentation sources can include:
- Code repositories: READMEs, API docs and implementation notes
- Wiki platforms: Architecture diagrams, design decisions and best practices
- Architectural decision records (ADRs): Historical context on key technical choices
- Product requirements documents: Product backlog items, user stories and acceptance criteria
- Runbooks: Step-by-step procedures for common operations
- Incident reports: Project reviews and lessons learned
- Onboarding materials: Getting started guides for new team members
- Third-party documentation: External resources that are relevant to the team
A lot of those data sources can be time-consuming and error-prone to sift through manually. Indeed, finding the right information may require asking colleagues for help or searching across multiple sources.
A combination of third-party and team-managed MCP servers can provide a single, governed interface for accessing documentation. By extending the LLM with MCP servers, team members can quickly ask questions about the documentation and receive answers. Furthermore, the LLM could use the information to provide more accurate and contextual support.
By treating documentation as a first-class resource within an MCP server, teams can dramatically reduce the time spent searching for information. This approach transforms documentation from static text into dynamic, discoverable knowledge that AI assistants can leverage to provide accurate, contextual support [3][4].
Effective documentation pipelines are a core practice of context engineering: curating authoritative sources, normalizing formats and enforcing retrieval policies so LLMs surface correct, current and permissioned knowledge [3][4].
2. Shared prompts library
Team members commonly design prompts to solve problems. For example, a prompt could be designed to do a code review for a pull request. The prompt, if designed correctly, should meet the team's requirements for code quality and provide useful feedback for possible improvements. If this prompt is useful, it could be shared with the team.
One way to share prompts is via AI-enabled IDE systems, such as Windsurf or Claude Code. These tools provide ways to store and share prompts and additional context for their AI models. Prompts can be shared by storing them as text files in your project and adding them to a version control system, such as Git. The prompts can then be accessed by any team member with access to the project. The drawback of this approach is that all IDEs have their own way of storing and working with prompts, which makes sharing prompts across IDEs a challenge.
Alternatively, an MCP server could be built with a shared prompts library. This would allow the team to share prompts across the team and use them in any context. Sharing prompts in this way would allow the team to do the following:
- Knowledge sharing: Prevent reinvention of prompts across the team
- Quality control: Ensure prompts follow best practices and avoid common pitfalls
- Versioning: Track prompt evolution and maintain backward compatibility
- Metadata enrichment: Tag prompts with intent, required inputs and expected outputs
- Governance: Apply consistent security and quality standards
By treating prompts as versioned, governed assets, teams create a shared language for interacting with AI systems. This approach ensures consistency, reduces duplication of effort and allows teams to build on each other's successes rather than starting from scratch with each new use case [5][6].
Prompt templates act as context scaffolds. As part of context engineering, teams standardize variables (inputs), grounding references (links/resources) and governance metadata (owners, versions, sensitivity tags) to make model behavior consistent and auditable.
3. Shared tools library
Teams often develop specialized tools to automate routine tasks or integrate with internal systems. These tools represent significant investments in time and expertise, but their value is limited if they remain siloed within specific teams or projects. MCP servers can expose these tools as callable actions, making them available to AI assistants and, by extension, to all team members.
Examples of shared tools that can be exposed through MCP servers include:
- Code quality tools: Static analysis tools that check for common issues in code, ensuring consistent quality standards across projects
- Deployment automation: Tools that handle the complexities of deploying applications to various environments, reducing the risk of human error
- Data access layers: Secure interfaces to internal databases or APIs that enforce proper access controls while making data available to authorized users
- Ticket management: Integration with issue tracking systems to create, update or query tickets without leaving the current workflow
- Environment management: Tools for provisioning development environments, managing configurations or rotating credentials
- Documentation generators: Automated tools that extract documentation from code or other sources and format it consistently
- Monitoring and alerting: Access to system health metrics, logs and alert status to quickly diagnose issues
- UI testing: Trigger and interpret end-to-end tests (e.g., Playwright/Cypress), capture screenshots/videos, and summarize failures
- Unit testing orchestration: Run targeted unit tests, collect artifacts, and surface flaky or failing tests with suggested owners
- Test management: Create and link test cases, plans, and runs in systems like TestRail or Jira/Xray, and update status based on results
- Coverage and Quality Gates: Fetch code coverage reports and enforce quality gates before merges or releases
For example, a team might develop a specialized tool for analyzing performance bottlenecks in their microservices architecture. By exposing this tool through an MCP server, any team member could ask an AI assistant to "check for performance issues in the payment service." The assistant would invoke the appropriate tool with the correct parameters, interpret the results and present actionable insights.
The benefits of a shared tools library include:
- Democratized access: Specialized capabilities become available to all team members, not just those with deep technical knowledge
- Consistent usage: Tools are always invoked with proper parameters and in the correct context
- Reduced context switching: Team members can access tool functionality without leaving their current workflow
- Improved governance: Tool usage can be monitored, audited and controlled centrally
- Knowledge preservation: Institutional knowledge about how to use complex tools is codified and preserved
By exposing tools through MCP servers, teams can ensure that their investments in automation and specialized functionality deliver maximum value across the organization [7][8][9].
QA and testing workflows with MCP
MCP-enabled QA workflows let team members ask the assistant to: run a regression suite for a feature branch, summarize failing UI tests with logs and screenshots, open a defect with linked artifacts, or update a test run's status in the test management system. Governance policies can require human approval for high-impact actions (e.g., running destructive tests) and ensure results are logged for auditability [21].
Tool schemas are context contracts. Context engineering specifies required inputs, constraints and redaction policies so LLMs pass only minimal, relevant context to tools and interpret outputs reliably [7][8][9].
While MCP servers offer substantial benefits for documentation, prompts and tools, realizing these benefits requires careful attention to security and governance. As teams expand their use of MCP servers, they must implement appropriate safeguards to protect sensitive information and prevent misuse.
Security and governance considerations
As teams adopt MCP servers, they must address important security and governance considerations. The power of these systems comes with responsibility, particularly when exposing sensitive information to powerful tools. A full review of risks associated with MCP servers is beyond the scope of this post, but it is essential to consider some of the basic risks [10][11][12][13].
Security‑aware context engineering includes source allowlists, retrieval guards, response validation, and data‑minimization patterns to reduce prompt injection, data leakage and over‑broad tool invocation [10][11][12][13].
- Prompt injection: AI models can be tricked into generating harmful or unintended responses
- Data leakage: Sensitive information may be inadvertently exposed through responses or logs
- Authentication vulnerabilities: Weak authentication mechanisms can allow unauthorized access to the MCP server capabilities
- Tool execution risks: Tools exposed through MCP servers may have unintended consequences if misused or exploited
Mitigating these risks can be challenging, but there are steps that can be taken to reduce them. One of the most important steps is to have a registry of approved MCP servers. This registry can be used to evaluate the security of the MCP server and ensure that it is appropriate for use by the team.
MCP server registry for enterprise
A registry of approved third-party MCP servers acts as a central catalog that teams can use to discover, evaluate and manage access to MCP servers. This approach offers several benefits:
- Security vetting: Each server in the registry undergoes a security assessment before approval
- Usage policies: Clear documentation of what each server can access and how it should be used
- Version tracking: Monitor updates to ensure servers maintain security standards over time
- Access control: Centralized management of which team members can access which servers
- Compliance documentation: Evidence that appropriate controls are in place for audits
Organizations will need to maintain such a registry and possibly have a security team that reviews the servers and ensures they are appropriate for use.
Custom MCP servers must also adhere to the same quality standards as third-party servers. These standards include security, governance and risk mitigation.
Security measures
- Role-based access control (RBAC): Implement fine-grained permissions for resources and tools [14]
- Authentication: Use secure authentication methods like OAuth or service accounts with limited scopes [15]
- Data classification: Tag resources with appropriate sensitivity levels and apply access controls accordingly
- PII protection: Implement automatic redaction of personally identifiable information [16]
- Secret scrubbing: Ensure credentials and API keys are never exposed in resources or logs [17][18]
Governance framework
- Ownership: Designate clear owners for the MCP server and its components
- Change control: Establish review processes for adding or modifying resources, prompts and tools
- Audit trails: Maintain immutable logs of all interactions for compliance and troubleshooting [21]
- Versioning policy: Define standards for versioning and deprecation of prompts and tools
- Training: Educate team members on proper usage and security considerations
These governance practices align with established frameworks like NIST SSDF and ISO/IEC 27001 [19][20].
Risk mitigation
- Hallucination management: Implement strategies to detect and correct AI hallucinations
- Approval workflows: Require human confirmation for sensitive or high-impact actions
- Sandboxing: Isolate tool execution environments to limit potential damage
- Rate limiting: Prevent abuse through appropriate throttling of requests [24]
- Monitoring: Implement alerts for unusual patterns or potential security incidents [25]
By addressing these considerations proactively, teams can enjoy the benefits of MCP servers while minimizing associated risks. A well-governed MCP implementation provides the right balance of power and control, enabling safe and effective use of AI capabilities across the organization.
With security and governance frameworks in place, teams must next decide whether to leverage existing third-party MCP servers or build their own custom solutions. This decision impacts implementation speed, customization options and long-term maintenance requirements.
Getting started with MCP servers
For teams looking to implement MCP servers, consider these practical next steps:
1. Identify your highest-value use case: Begin with a specific pain point, such as centralizing documentation or standardizing prompts for a common task.
2. Define a context engineering strategy: Identify authoritative sources, access policies, retrieval methods, prompt variables and tool schemas; then encode them in MCP resources, prompts and tools [3][4].
3. Start with third-party options: Evaluate existing MCP servers that address your primary use case before committing to building your own.
4. Establish governance early: Define clear ownership, security requirements and usage policies before widespread adoption.
5. Measure impact: Track metrics like time saved, reduced interruptions or improved quality to demonstrate the value of your MCP implementation.
6. Iterate and expand: Once you've proven value in one area, gradually expand to additional use cases based on team feedback and organizational needs.
In an era where information overload and context switching are constant challenges, MCP servers offer a powerful antidote—turning scattered knowledge and disparate tools into a unified, AI-accessible interface that makes every team member more productive and effective. The teams that embrace this technology today will be better positioned to leverage AI's full potential in their workflows tomorrow.
Conclusion
As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into professional workflows, teams that leverage MCP servers gain a significant competitive advantage. These powerful infrastructure components transform how teams manage knowledge, standardize AI interactions and safely automate routine tasks.
The key benefits of team-focused MCP servers include:
- Centralized knowledge management: Transform scattered documentation into discoverable resources
- Standardized AI interactions: Create consistent, high-quality experiences through shared prompts
- Safe tool automation: Enable AI to perform meaningful work while maintaining appropriate controls
- Reduced interruptions: Decrease the need for team members to answer routine questions
- Accelerated onboarding: Help new team members quickly access relevant information and tools
- Improved governance: Apply consistent security and quality standards across AI interactions
While implementing an MCP server requires thoughtful planning and ongoing maintenance, the benefits far outweigh the costs for most teams. By starting small, focusing on high-value use cases and iterating based on feedback, teams can quickly demonstrate value while building toward a more comprehensive solution.
References
1. Model Context Protocol specification: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/specification
2. MCP Registry: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry
3. Lewis et al., Retrieval-Augmented Generation, 2020: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401
4. Survey on Retrieval-Augmented Generation, 2023: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997
5. Stanford CS324 notes (prompt engineering): https://stanford-cs324.github.io/winter2022/lectures/notes/
6. Made With ML – LLM application engineering (prompt management): https://madewithml.com/courses/llm/
7. Anthropic – Tool Use docs: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/tool-use
8. OpenAI – Function calling: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/function-calling
9. LangChain – Security considerations: https://python.langchain.com/docs/security/
10. OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications: https://owasp.org/www-project-top-10-for-large-language-model-applications/
11. Microsoft – Prompt injection guidance: https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/ai-services/openai/concepts/prompt-injection
12. Simon Willison – Prompt injection posts: https://simonwillison.net/tags/prompt-injection/
13. NIST AI Risk Management Framework: https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
14. NIST RBAC project: https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/role-based-access-control
15. OAuth 2.0: https://oauth.net/2/
16. Microsoft Presidio (PII redaction): https://github.com/microsoft/presidio
17. GitHub Advanced Security – Secret scanning: https://docs.github.com/code-security/secret-scanning/about-secret-scanning
18. truffleHog: https://github.com/trufflesecurity/trufflehog
19. NIST Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF): https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/ssdf
20. ISO/IEC 27001: https://www.iso.org/standard/27001
21. AWS CloudTrail (audit trails): https://docs.aws.amazon.com/awscloudtrail/latest/userguide/cloudtrail-user-guide.html
22. Architecture Decision Record (ADR) templates: https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/architecture_decision_record
23. ThoughtWorks on ADRs: https://www.thoughtworks.com/insights/articles/architecture-decision-records
24. Cloudflare – Rate limiting patterns: https://developers.cloudflare.com/rate-limits/
25. OpenTelemetry – Observability docs: https://opentelemetry.io/docs/