DEV Community

Cover image for Secure Agent Database Access: Architecture Patterns That Actually Work
Pylar profile image Hoshang Mehta
Hoshang Mehta for Pylar

Posted on

Secure Agent Database Access: Architecture Patterns That Actually Work

#security #ai #database

Most teams start building AI agents the same way: connect them directly to the database, give them credentials, and hope for the best. It feels fast—just paste a connection string and you're done. But here's what I've learned after watching dozens of teams deploy agents: that approach creates architecture problems that compound over time.

The real challenge isn't connecting agents to databases. It's building an architecture that's secure, scalable, and maintainable. You need patterns that prevent security incidents, handle scale, and make compliance audits straightforward.

Secure agent database access isn't about adding more layers of complexity. It's about choosing the right architecture patterns from day one—patterns that actually work in production, not just in demos.

This guide covers the architecture patterns we've seen work in production. Whether you're building your first agent or scaling to dozens, these patterns will help you build securely from the start.

Table of Contents

Why Architecture Matters for Agent Security

Architecture isn't just about how components connect. It's about how you control access, enforce boundaries, and contain failures.

The Direct Access Problem

When you give agents direct database access, you're creating a single point of failure. One compromised agent can access everything. One poorly written query can crash your production database. One compliance gap can fail your audit.

What direct access looks like:

Agent → Database (Production)
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Problems:

  • No access control boundaries
  • No query optimization layer
  • No audit trail
  • No failure isolation
  • No compliance controls

Why Architecture Patterns Solve This

Good architecture patterns create boundaries. They enforce separation of concerns. They make failures contained and predictable.

What good architecture looks like:

Agent → Tool Layer → View Layer → Data Layer
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Each layer adds security, governance, and control. If one layer fails, others provide defense.

The Three Principles of Secure Agent Architecture

1. Isolation: Agents never touch production databases directly. They query through isolated layers that enforce boundaries.

2. Governance: Every access is controlled, logged, and auditable. You know exactly what agents can access and why.

3. Optimization: Queries are optimized, cached, and limited. Performance is predictable, costs are controlled.

These principles guide every pattern we'll discuss.

The Three-Layer Architecture Pattern

The most effective pattern we've seen is the three-layer architecture. It separates concerns cleanly and scales well.

Layer 1: Data Layer

Your raw data sources:

  • Production databases (Postgres, MySQL)
  • Data warehouses (Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks)
  • SaaS tools (HubSpot, Salesforce, Stripe)
  • Product analytics (Amplitude, Mixpanel)

Characteristics:

  • Raw, unfiltered data
  • Production-grade performance
  • Full schema complexity
  • Sensitive data included

Agents should never access this layer directly.

Layer 2: View Layer (Governance)

Governed SQL views that define what agents can access:

  • Sandboxed views (filtered, column-limited)
  • Joined views (unified across systems)
  • Optimized views (pre-aggregated, indexed)
  • Compliance views (GDPR, SOC2 compliant)

Characteristics:

  • Fine-grained access control
  • Query optimization built-in
  • Compliance enforcement
  • Audit trails

This is where governance happens.

Layer 3: Tool Layer (Abstraction)

MCP tools that agents use to query views:

  • Natural language → SQL translation
  • Parameter validation
  • Error handling
  • Result formatting

Characteristics:

  • Agent-friendly interface
  • Input validation
  • Error boundaries
  • Usage monitoring

This is where agents interact with your data.

How the Layers Work Together

Flow: Agent → Tool → View → Data

  1. Agent asks a question: "What's the status of customer@example.com?"
  2. Tool translates to SQL: SELECT * FROM customer_support_view WHERE email = 'customer@example.com'
  3. View executes query with governance: Filters, limits, optimizes
  4. Data returns results through view: Only authorized data

Each layer adds value. Together, they create secure, scalable agent access.

Pattern 1: Sandboxed Views Layer

The sandboxed views pattern is the foundation of secure agent database access. It creates a governance layer between agents and data.

What It Is

Sandboxed views are SQL views that define exactly what agents can access. They're like windows into your data—agents can only see what you let them see through those windows.

Architecture:

Agent → MCP Tool → Sandboxed View → Database
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

How It Works

Step 1: Create Sandboxed Views

Define SQL views that limit access:

-- Customer Support View (Sandboxed)
CREATE VIEW customer_support_view AS
SELECT 
  customer_id,
  customer_name,
  email,
  plan_name,
  signup_date,
  subscription_status,
  last_login_date,
  -- Usage data (last 30 days only)
  active_users_30d,
  feature_adoption_score,
  -- Support data
  open_tickets,
  last_ticket_date
FROM customers
WHERE is_active = true
  AND signup_date >= DATE_SUB(CURRENT_DATE(), INTERVAL 2 YEAR)  -- GDPR: only last 2 years
  -- Excludes: credit_card_number, internal_notes, ssn, etc.
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Step 2: Create MCP Tools on Views

Turn views into tools agents can use:

// MCP Tool: get_customer_info
{
  name: "get_customer_info",
  description: "Get customer information for support context",
  parameters: {
    email: { type: "string", required: true }
  },
  query: "SELECT * FROM customer_support_view WHERE email = :email"
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Step 3: Agents Query Through Tools

Agents use tools, not views directly:

Agent: "What's the status of customer@example.com?"
Tool: Queries customer_support_view
View: Returns only authorized data
Agent: Gets answer with complete context
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Benefits

Security: Agents can only access data defined in views. No accidental exposure of sensitive tables or columns.

Governance: Every view is documented, version-controlled, and auditable. You know exactly what agents can access.

Performance: Views can be optimized (indexed, pre-aggregated). Queries are fast and predictable.

Compliance: Views enforce data retention limits, PII exclusions, and access boundaries. Audit-ready.

When to Use This Pattern

  • You need fine-grained access control
  • You have compliance requirements (SOC2, GDPR)
  • You want to optimize query performance
  • You need to join data across multiple systems

Real Example

A support team needed agents to access customer data without exposing sensitive information. They created a sandboxed view that:

  • Included only support-relevant columns (name, email, plan, usage)
  • Excluded sensitive data (credit cards, internal notes, SSNs)
  • Filtered to active customers only
  • Limited to last 2 years (GDPR compliance)

The agent could answer support questions without ever seeing sensitive data.

Pattern 2: Read Replica Isolation

The read replica pattern isolates agent queries from production databases. It's essential for preventing performance issues.

What It Is

Create read replicas of your production database. Agents query replicas, never production.

Architecture:

Production DB → Read Replica → Sandboxed Views → Agents
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

How It Works

Step 1: Set Up Read Replicas

Create read replicas of your production database:

  • Postgres: Streaming replication
  • MySQL: Master-slave replication
  • Cloud databases: Managed read replicas (RDS, Cloud SQL)

Step 2: Route Agents to Replicas

Configure views to query replicas:

-- View queries read replica, not production
CREATE VIEW customer_support_view AS
SELECT * FROM replica_db.customers
WHERE is_active = true;
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Step 3: Monitor Replica Performance

Track query performance on replicas separately from production:

  • Query latency
  • Connection pool usage
  • Replication lag
  • Cost attribution

Benefits

Performance Isolation: Agent queries don't impact production performance. Production stays fast for customer-facing services.

Scalability: Scale replicas independently. Add more replicas as agent usage grows.

Disaster Recovery: Replicas can serve as backups. If production fails, replicas provide continuity.

Cost Control: Replicas are cheaper than production. You can optimize replica configuration for analytical queries.

Limitations

Replication Lag: Data might be slightly stale (seconds to minutes). Not suitable for real-time use cases.

Cost: Additional infrastructure cost. But cheaper than production downtime.

Complexity: Need to manage replication, monitor lag, handle failover.

When to Use This Pattern

  • You have high-traffic production databases
  • Agent queries are analytical (not real-time)
  • You need to prevent production performance impact
  • You can tolerate slight data staleness

Real Example

A SaaS company had a production Postgres database serving customer-facing applications. They deployed agents that needed to query customer data for analytics. Instead of giving agents production access, they:

  1. Created a read replica with optimized configuration for analytical queries
  2. Built sandboxed views that query the replica
  3. Configured agents to use views, not production

Result: Production performance unaffected, agents got fast access to data, costs were controlled.

Pattern 3: Data Warehouse Routing

The data warehouse pattern routes agents to analytical databases optimized for queries, not transactions.

What It Is

Sync production data to a data warehouse. Agents query the warehouse, not production databases.

Architecture:

Production DB → ETL → Data Warehouse → Sandboxed Views → Agents
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

How It Works

Step 1: Set Up Data Warehouse

Choose a warehouse optimized for analytics:

  • Snowflake: Cloud-native, scalable
  • BigQuery: Serverless, fast
  • Databricks: Spark-based, flexible
  • Redshift: AWS-native, cost-effective

Step 2: Sync Production Data

Set up ETL pipelines to sync data:

  • Real-time: Change data capture (CDC)
  • Batch: Hourly or daily syncs
  • Hybrid: Critical data real-time, historical data batch

Step 3: Build Views in Warehouse

Create views optimized for analytical queries:

-- Pre-aggregated customer health view
CREATE VIEW customer_health_aggregated AS
SELECT 
  customer_id,
  customer_name,
  email,
  plan_name,
  -- Pre-aggregated metrics
  total_revenue,
  order_count,
  avg_order_value,
  active_users_30d,
  feature_adoption_score,
  -- Risk signals
  CASE 
    WHEN login_frequency < 0.5 THEN 'high_risk'
    WHEN open_tickets > 5 THEN 'high_risk'
    ELSE 'healthy'
  END as health_status
FROM customers_aggregated
WHERE is_active = true;
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Step 4: Route Agents to Warehouse

Agents query warehouse views, not production:

Agent → Tool → Warehouse View → Warehouse Data
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Benefits

Performance: Warehouses are optimized for analytical queries. Fast aggregations, joins, and filters.

Cost: Warehouses are cheaper for analytical workloads. Pay for compute, not always-on infrastructure.

Scale: Warehouses scale independently. Handle millions of rows without impacting production.

Unified Data: Join data from multiple sources in one place. Production DB + SaaS tools + analytics.

Limitations

Data Freshness: Batch syncs mean data might be hours or days old. Not suitable for real-time use cases.

ETL Complexity: Need to build and maintain ETL pipelines. Schema changes require pipeline updates.

Cost at Scale: Warehouses can get expensive with high query volume. Need to optimize queries and use caching.

When to Use This Pattern

  • You have a data warehouse already
  • Agent queries are analytical (not transactional)
  • You need to join data across multiple sources
  • You can tolerate data freshness delays

Real Example

A fintech company had customer data in Postgres (transactions) and Snowflake (analytics). They needed agents to answer questions about customer behavior, revenue trends, and risk signals. They:

  1. Built views in Snowflake that joined transaction data with analytics
  2. Created MCP tools that query Snowflake views
  3. Configured agents to use tools, not Postgres

Result: Agents got fast access to unified data, Postgres stayed focused on transactions, costs were optimized.

Pattern 4: API Gateway Pattern

The API gateway pattern adds a REST API layer between agents and databases. It's useful when you need HTTP-based access.

What It Is

Build REST APIs that wrap database queries. Agents call APIs, not databases directly.

Architecture:

Agent → API Gateway → API Endpoints → Database Views → Database
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

How It Works

Step 1: Build API Endpoints

Create REST endpoints that wrap database queries:

# FastAPI endpoint
@app.get("/api/customers/{email}")
async def get_customer(email: str):
    # Query sandboxed view
    query = "SELECT * FROM customer_support_view WHERE email = :email"
    result = db.execute(query, {"email": email})
    return result
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Step 2: Add Authentication

Secure APIs with authentication:

  • API keys per agent
  • OAuth tokens
  • Service account credentials

Step 3: Add Rate Limiting

Prevent abuse with rate limits:

  • Requests per minute
  • Queries per hour
  • Cost limits per day

Step 4: Agents Call APIs

Agents use HTTP clients to call APIs:

// Agent calls API
const response = await fetch(`https://api.example.com/customers/${email}`, {
  headers: { 'Authorization': `Bearer ${apiKey}` }
});
const customer = await response.json();
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Benefits

Standard Interface: REST APIs are familiar, well-documented, easy to integrate.

HTTP Features: Caching, CDN, load balancing. Standard HTTP tooling works.

Language Agnostic: Any language can call REST APIs. Not limited to SQL.

Versioning: API versioning is straightforward. Backward compatibility is manageable.

Limitations

Rigidity: APIs expose fixed endpoints. New questions require new endpoints.

Overhead: HTTP overhead (serialization, network). Slower than direct database access.

Complexity: Need to build, deploy, and maintain APIs. Additional infrastructure.

Not Agent-Native: APIs are designed for applications, not agents. Don't support flexible querying.

When to Use This Pattern

  • You need HTTP-based access
  • You have existing API infrastructure
  • You need to support non-SQL clients
  • You want to use standard HTTP tooling

Real Example

A company had existing REST APIs for their application. They wanted agents to use the same APIs for consistency. They:

  1. Created new API endpoints that query sandboxed views
  2. Added agent-specific authentication
  3. Configured agents to call APIs via HTTP

Result: Agents used existing infrastructure, but with governed access through views.

Pattern 5: MCP Tool Abstraction

The MCP tool pattern is the most agent-native approach. It uses Model Context Protocol (MCP) to create tools agents can use directly.

What It Is

MCP tools are functions that agents can call. They abstract database queries behind natural language interfaces.

Architecture:

Agent → MCP Tool → Sandboxed View → Database
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

How It Works

Step 1: Create MCP Tools

Define tools that agents can use:

{
  "name": "get_customer_health",
  "description": "Get customer health status including usage, revenue, and risk signals",
  "parameters": {
    "customer_email": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "Customer email address",
      "required": true
    }
  },
  "query": "SELECT * FROM customer_health_view WHERE email = :customer_email"
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Step 2: Publish MCP Server

Publish tools as an MCP server:

  • Generate MCP server configuration
  • Provide authentication credentials
  • Expose server URL

Step 3: Connect Agents

Agents connect to MCP server:

  • Claude Desktop: Add MCP server to config
  • LangGraph: Add tools to agent
  • OpenAI: Add tools to assistant
  • n8n/Zapier: Use MCP nodes

Step 4: Agents Use Tools

Agents call tools naturally:

Agent: "What's the health of customer@example.com?"
Tool: get_customer_health(customer_email: "customer@example.com")
View: Returns customer health data
Agent: Analyzes and responds
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Benefits

Agent-Native: Designed for agents, not applications. Natural language interfaces.

Flexible: Tools can be composed, chained, and combined. Agents can use multiple tools.

Framework-Agnostic: Works with any MCP-compatible framework. Claude, LangChain, OpenAI, n8n, etc.

Self-Service: Data teams can build tools without engineering. No API development needed.

Limitations

MCP Adoption: Requires MCP-compatible agent frameworks. Not all frameworks support MCP yet.

Tool Complexity: Complex queries might need multiple tools. Tool composition can be challenging.

Documentation: Tools need good descriptions. Agents rely on descriptions to use tools correctly.

When to Use This Pattern

  • You're using MCP-compatible frameworks
  • You want agent-native interfaces
  • You need framework-agnostic access
  • You want self-service tool building

Real Example

A data team needed to give multiple agent frameworks access to customer data. They:

  1. Created sandboxed views for customer data
  2. Built MCP tools on top of views
  3. Published MCP server with authentication
  4. Connected Claude Desktop, LangGraph, and n8n to the same server

Result: All frameworks got secure, governed access through the same tools. One control plane, multiple frameworks.

Real-World Architecture Examples

Let me show you how teams combine these patterns in practice:

Example 1: Multi-Source Customer Support Agent

Requirements:

  • Access customer data from HubSpot (CRM)
  • Access usage data from Amplitude (product analytics)
  • Access support tickets from Zendesk
  • Real-time data for support context
  • SOC2 compliance

Architecture:

Agent → MCP Tools → Sandboxed Views → Data Sources
                                    ├─ HubSpot (API)
                                    ├─ Amplitude (API)
                                    └─ Zendesk (API)
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Implementation:

  1. Views Layer: Created unified customer support view that joins HubSpot, Amplitude, and Zendesk data
  2. Tool Layer: Built MCP tools that query the unified view
  3. Agent Layer: Connected support agent to MCP tools

Result: Agent gets complete customer context in one query, with governance and compliance built in.

Example 2: Analytics Agent with Data Warehouse

Requirements:

  • Access historical customer data
  • Join data from Postgres (transactions) and Snowflake (analytics)
  • Analytical queries (aggregations, trends)
  • Cost optimization

Architecture:

Agent → MCP Tools → Warehouse Views → Snowflake
                                    └─ Postgres (synced)
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Implementation:

  1. ETL: Synced Postgres transaction data to Snowflake hourly
  2. Views Layer: Created analytical views in Snowflake that join transaction and analytics data
  3. Tool Layer: Built MCP tools that query Snowflake views
  4. Agent Layer: Connected analytics agent to tools

Result: Fast analytical queries, unified data, optimized costs.

Example 3: Sales Intelligence Agent with Read Replicas

Requirements:

  • Access CRM data from Salesforce
  • Access pipeline data from HubSpot
  • Real-time data for sales context
  • Prevent production performance impact

Architecture:

Agent → MCP Tools → Sandboxed Views → Read Replicas
                                    ├─ Salesforce (read replica)
                                    └─ HubSpot (read replica)
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Implementation:

  1. Replicas: Set up read replicas for Salesforce and HubSpot
  2. Views Layer: Created unified sales intelligence view that joins replica data
  3. Tool Layer: Built MCP tools that query the unified view
  4. Agent Layer: Connected sales agent to tools

Result: Real-time sales context without impacting production performance.

Choosing the Right Pattern for Your Use Case

Here's how to choose the right pattern:

Use Sandboxed Views When:

  • ✅ You need fine-grained access control
  • ✅ You have compliance requirements
  • ✅ You want to optimize query performance
  • ✅ You need to join data across systems

Use Read Replicas When:

  • ✅ You have high-traffic production databases
  • ✅ Agent queries are analytical (not real-time)
  • ✅ You need to prevent production performance impact
  • ✅ You can tolerate slight data staleness

Use Data Warehouse When:

  • ✅ You have a data warehouse already
  • ✅ Agent queries are analytical (not transactional)
  • ✅ You need to join data across multiple sources
  • ✅ You can tolerate data freshness delays

Use API Gateway When:

  • ✅ You need HTTP-based access
  • ✅ You have existing API infrastructure
  • ✅ You need to support non-SQL clients
  • ✅ You want to use standard HTTP tooling

Use MCP Tools When:

  • ✅ You're using MCP-compatible frameworks
  • ✅ You want agent-native interfaces
  • ✅ You need framework-agnostic access
  • ✅ You want self-service tool building

Combining Patterns

You can combine patterns:

  • Views + Replicas: Sandboxed views query read replicas
  • Views + Warehouse: Sandboxed views in data warehouse
  • Views + MCP: MCP tools query sandboxed views
  • All Three: Views in warehouse, accessed via MCP tools, with replica fallback

The key is to start with views (governance), then add isolation (replicas/warehouse), then add abstraction (MCP tools).

Common Architecture Mistakes

Here are the mistakes we've seen teams make:

Mistake 1: Skipping the View Layer

What happens: Teams give agents direct database access, thinking they'll add governance later.

Why it fails: Adding governance retroactively is hard. You have to refactor all agents, update all queries, rebuild all access controls.

The fix: Start with sandboxed views from day one. Governance is easier to add when it's built into the architecture.

Mistake 2: Using Production Databases Directly

What happens: Teams connect agents directly to production databases.

Why it fails: Agent queries impact production performance. One slow query can crash customer-facing services.

The fix: Use read replicas or data warehouses. Isolate agent queries from production.

Mistake 3: Building One-Off APIs

What happens: Teams build custom APIs for each agent use case.

Why it fails: Engineering becomes a bottleneck. No centralized governance. Hard to maintain.

The fix: Use MCP tools or a unified API layer. One control plane for all agents.

Mistake 4: Ignoring Data Freshness

What happens: Teams use batch-synced data warehouses for real-time use cases.

Why it fails: Agents return stale data. Users get frustrated. Trust erodes.

The fix: Match data freshness to use case. Real-time use cases need real-time data (replicas or direct API access).

Mistake 5: Not Monitoring Architecture

What happens: Teams deploy architecture and don't monitor it.

Why it fails: Performance issues go unnoticed. Cost overruns happen. Security gaps emerge.

The fix: Monitor query performance, costs, and access patterns. Set up alerts for anomalies.

Where Pylar Fits In

Pylar implements the three-layer architecture pattern with MCP tool abstraction. Here's how it fits:

Sandboxed Views Layer: Pylar's SQL IDE lets you create governed views that define exactly what agents can access. Views can join data across multiple systems (Postgres, Snowflake, HubSpot, etc.) in a single query, with governance and access controls built in.

MCP Tool Builder: Pylar automatically generates MCP tools from your views. Describe what you want in natural language, and Pylar creates the tool definition, parameter validation, and query logic. No backend engineering required.

Framework-Agnostic Access: Pylar tools work with any MCP-compatible framework—Claude Desktop, LangGraph, OpenAI, n8n, Zapier, and more. One control plane for all your agents, regardless of which framework they use.

Data Source Flexibility: Pylar connects to read replicas, data warehouses, and SaaS APIs. You choose the right data source for each use case, and Pylar handles the complexity of cross-system joins and governance.

Evals and Monitoring: Pylar's Evals system gives you visibility into how agents are using your architecture. Track query performance, costs, error rates, and access patterns. Get alerts when something looks wrong.

Pylar is the architecture layer that makes secure agent database access practical. Instead of building custom APIs or managing complex ETL pipelines, you build views and tools. The architecture handles the rest.

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between these architecture patterns?

Sandboxed Views: Governance layer that defines what agents can access. Foundation of secure access.

Read Replicas: Isolation layer that prevents production performance impact. Use when you need to protect production.

Data Warehouse: Analytical layer optimized for queries. Use when you have analytical workloads.

API Gateway: HTTP layer for standard API access. Use when you need HTTP-based integration.

MCP Tools: Agent-native layer for flexible querying. Use when you want agent-optimized interfaces.

Can I combine multiple patterns?

Yes. The most common combination is Views + Replicas + MCP Tools: Sandboxed views query read replicas, accessed via MCP tools. This gives you governance, isolation, and agent-native interfaces.

How do I choose between read replicas and data warehouses?

Use read replicas when:

  • You need real-time data (low latency)
  • You have transactional databases
  • You want minimal data freshness delay

Use data warehouses when:

  • You have analytical workloads
  • You need to join data across multiple sources
  • You can tolerate data freshness delays (hours/days)
  • You want cost optimization for analytical queries

Do I need to build all layers at once?

No. Start with sandboxed views (governance). Then add isolation (replicas/warehouse) if needed. Then add abstraction (MCP tools) for agent-native access. Iterate based on your needs.

How do I monitor architecture performance?

Monitor:

  • Query latency (how fast are queries?)
  • Query costs (how much do queries cost?)
  • Error rates (how often do queries fail?)
  • Access patterns (what data are agents accessing?)
  • Replication lag (if using replicas)
  • Data freshness (if using warehouses)

Use tools like Pylar Evals, APM tools, or custom monitoring dashboards.

What if I need real-time data?

For real-time data, use:

  • Read replicas (low latency, near real-time)
  • Direct API access (real-time, but need governance)
  • Change data capture (CDC) to warehouse (real-time sync)

Avoid batch-synced warehouses for real-time use cases.

How do I ensure compliance with these patterns?

All patterns support compliance when you:

  • Use sandboxed views (enforce access boundaries)
  • Log all access (audit trails)
  • Monitor agent behavior (detect violations)
  • Document architecture (compliance evidence)

The view layer is key—it enforces governance that compliance frameworks require.

Can I use these patterns with existing infrastructure?

Yes. These patterns work with:

  • Existing databases (add views and replicas)
  • Existing warehouses (add views)
  • Existing APIs (wrap with views)
  • Existing agent frameworks (add MCP tools)

You don't need to replace infrastructure. You add governance layers on top.

The right architecture makes secure agent database access practical. Start with sandboxed views for governance, add isolation for performance, and use MCP tools for agent-native access. Build incrementally, monitor continuously, and iterate based on real usage.

If you're building AI agents that need database access, start with the three-layer pattern. It's the foundation that makes everything else possible.

Top comments (0)