Local versus remote MCP transport

Local process transport and remote HTTP create different identity and containment questions.

01 / The operating case

What changes in a real workflow?

A local stdio server inherits a developer workstation’s files, while a remote HTTP server accepts requests from many clients.

Trace the authority boundary
  1. 01Client / task
  2. 02MCP server
  3. 03Tool call + arguments
  4. 04Downstream effect

02 / Decision contract

What the executor must check

For local use constrain process privileges and filesystem access; for remote use authenticated resource access, audience checks, tenant isolation and network controls.

InputPrincipal · task · action · target
DecisionGrant ancestry · policy · current state
ResultEnforce · record · verify outcome

03 / Failure and evidence

What goes wrong, and what can be proven?

Failure mode

Treating local launch as intrinsically trusted or remote TLS as complete action authorization leaves the effect boundary open.

Evidence to retain

Record deployment mode, process or resource identity, credential source and downstream invocation.

04 / Canonical scope

Why this reference stands alone

Server isolation focuses compromise blast radius; this page compares deployment trust boundaries.

Protocol or attack trace

Transport threat split

Sequence

stdio server inherits local filesystem rights; HTTP server receives a request from another machine with a bearer token.

Negative test

Local: attempt path outside approved workspace. Remote: attempt token for another MCP audience. Both must fail for different reasons.

Primary references

Read the underlying material

Architecture discussion

Choose one consequential action and make its boundary explicit.

Request a Conversation