Industry
Banking and insurance: read-only is the feature
Read-only account tasks may be a useful starting scope. They still require authorization, privacy and security review, and a public scan cannot inspect a signed-in customer journey.
Last reviewed 30 September 2026
Start with a narrowly defined customer question, such as finding policy information or a claim status. Decide which data an assistant may read in the customer's session and review the associated risks before implementing a tool.
Nobody is asking you to let an agent bind a policy. They are asking whether a customer can find out what their policy covers without navigating a portal at eleven at night.
A surface that passes review
find_my_policy() readOnlyHint: true explain_coverage(policyId, scenario) readOnlyHint: true get_claim_status(claimId) readOnlyHint: true list_required_documents(claimType) readOnlyHint: true locate_form(topic) readOnlyHint: true get_next_payment() readOnlyHint: true prefill_claim_draft(...) // prepares only; the human submits
These are candidate tools, not a verified deployment. Read-only behavior must be enforced by the application; a draft operation must not submit or change a claim without the intended human step.
The argument for the compliance meeting
- Review the credential path. Browser tools may use the visitor's authenticated session, while a remote MCP server needs its own authorization design. Check what the assistant can see, retain and send, and how access is revoked.
- Read-only is declared and enforced.
readOnlyHint: truetells the agent. Your server-side authorisation enforces it. The annotation is advisory — the authorisation is not, and that distinction belongs in the submission. - Nothing is enumerable. Tools scope to the session. There is no tool that accepts an arbitrary policy number.
- Anything consequential stops for a human, in your own UI, with your own confirmation copy.
- Scope is bounded by policy. The
toolspermissions-policy feature defaults to an allowlist of['self']; a cross-origin iframe needs an explicitallow="tools".
Reading private data, processing untrusted content and sending information outward can create an exfiltration path. Tool annotations are advisory, not enforcement. Document the threat model, server-side authorization, client behavior and human confirmation requirements for the actual workflow; approval depends on the institution's review.
Do the boring pillars first
Public product pages may have access, rendering or form-label barriers that a source scan can inspect. Private portals need a separate authorized review and task test.
Fix a documented public-page barrier where it affects the chosen task. Estimate the implementation effort from the actual code and verify the page and browser task after the change.
The knowledge layer, further out
For institutions, the machine-readable knowledge layer eventually matters as much as the action layer. An agent answering a coverage question needs facts that are current, sourced and approved — not a paragraph scraped from a marketing page.
A governed knowledge layer may need provenance and freshness metadata: source, verification owner and review date. Scope it against the institution's data and access controls rather than assuming a standard format or timeline.
Sources
Source references · article reviewed 30 September 2026
- webmachinelearning.github.io/webmcp — Annotations, permissions policy, secure context
- developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/webmcp
- OWASP — Top 10 for LLM Applications
- Google Cloud — OKF bundles and Knowledge Catalog — Where the governed knowledge layer is heading
Keep reading
Check your own site against this
The Agent Readiness Score measures exactly what this article describes, and shows the evidence behind every finding.
Run the check →