When you start building AI applications beyond simple experiments, everything changes. Models need access to files, databases, APIs, and internal s...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
The rate limiting piece is the one I keep running into. I built mcp-x to wrap any CLI as an MCP server locally, and the moment I tested it with anything stateful I realized there's no guardrail layer — it's just trust the agent. The $2k spike example is exactly the kind of thing that makes you want a gateway in front of everything. How are you handling tool schema drift when the underlying CLI updates?
When you wrap the CLI through MCP, you essentially create a connection between the gateway and the tool.
Interesting idea. But I’m curious whether this is an MCP-specific problem or just the same orchestration problems we’ve already solved with API gateways and service meshes.
It feels like every new layer of abstraction ends up needing its own gateway. I wonder if this becomes real infrastructure or if it’s just a temporary pattern while the ecosystem is still figuring itself out.
Still a cool project though.
Bifrost acts as a protocol bridge that integrates with existing API gateways rather than reimplementing orchestration. This allows you to get the most out of your LLM.
Thanks for your comment!
Project looks interesting
I think too
What do you think about this MCP Gateway?
Great breakdown — especially the sequence of RBAC → rate limits → budget checks → audit logs.
From an ops angle, one thing that’s helped US teams I work with is adding environment-scoped policies (dev/stage/prod) + break-glass workflows with automatic incident logging. It keeps SOC 2 / ISO-style controls practical without slowing every deploy.
Curious if you’ve tested policy-as-code (e.g., OPA/Rego) for tool authorization rules as MCP fleets grow?
This is interesting timing — we just built something similar but for a different use case: controlling which AI agents in a multi-agent system can trigger other agents.
We have a canTriggerOthers boolean per agent. Finance agent? false (shouldn't cascade, data leak risk). Marketing agent? true (needs to hand off hot leads to Sales). Without this gate, our Sales agent once triggered Marketing which triggered Sales which triggered Marketing... infinite loop.
The gateway pattern makes total sense for this. Are you seeing enterprises use it for multi-agent coordination, or mostly single-agent tool access?
The gateway pattern is exactly where enterprise MCP adoption needed to go. I've been watching teams try to bolt on access control and rate limiting at the application layer, and it's always a mess -- every team reinvents it differently, nothing is consistent, and audit trails are an afterthought. Centralizing that at the gateway level is the right call architecturally.