Loading…
Architecture comparison · Operator consent
Decionis vs MCP approval prompts
A client confirmation asks a person to approve a call. The separate engineering question is how the server binds and enforces that approval.
Public sources checked . Our architectural assessment follows the scope of the sources below. Send a correction; accepted corrections update this date.
When is MCP approval prompts the better choice?
- You operate a personal development environment.
- You control the credentials and consequences.
- The client presents enough context for informed consent.
- You do not need transferable proof for a separate organization.
What changes at the execution boundary?
| Dimension | Decionis | MCP approval prompts |
|---|---|---|
| Control boundary | One exact action, with authority re-evaluated immediately before commit. | The MCP tools specification recommends human oversight, input visibility and confirmation for sensitive operations. Client implementations differ; it is inaccurate to say prompts never show parameters. |
| Evidence | Signed Decision Dossier; verify the covered artifacts with the appropriate public keys, without an account. | The cited tools specification does not require Decionis-style signed decision evidence. Evaluate what your chosen client and server actually retain and enforce. |
| Deployment responsibility | The integrating host must isolate credentials, prevent bypass and enforce the decision. | Evaluate the chosen deployment and its enforcement boundary; a product category is not evidence of a specific installation. |
| Procurement posture | SOC 2 in progress. These pages address engineering and architecture, not certification equivalence. | Obtain current assurance documents and check the service and deployment they cover. |
Decionis contract: enforce-and-bind, claim-before-commit and finalize. Signature validity is separate from execution eligibility and downstream effect confirmation.
Can these controls work together?
Keep useful client prompts. Add a server-enforced action boundary when the agent acts against shared production resources; a prompt and an authority are complementary controls.
Check the evidence
Verify this yourself — no account, works offline
This preloaded dossier has real Ed25519 signatures over synthetic data from the public Agent-Safe corpus. Its test key is deliberately public. It demonstrates verification and tamper detection; it is not customer evidence, a production signature, or permission to execute.
Ready to check locally
npx -y @decionis/verify --file OwnedExecutionBound.json --jwks Jwks.json
After the page or files load, the signature checks need no network. Installing the CLI may require a connection. Valid signatures establish integrity relative to the selected key, not whether the original facts were true.
Sources and scope
- MCP tools specification, 2025-11-25 · checked 2026-09-16
A capability not described in the cited public material may still exist. This is a technical comparison of documented controls, not a claim of exhaustive vendor testing.