Govern and secure AI agents and MCP servers with centralized visibility, policy control, and audit trails. Security, compliance, and control for the agentic era.
The 'control plane' framing is smart — as MCP adoption scales across enterprise teams, the governance layer is often an afterthought until something goes wrong. Centralized audit trails for agentic actions in particular will be a real selling point for compliance-heavy orgs. Curious how you handle policy conflicts when multiple teams have deployed agents with overlapping permissions — is that a manual resolution process or something Golf enforces automatically? Also wondering if the tooling surfaces enough context in the audit trail for non-technical stakeholders (legal, infosec) to actually act on what they're seeing.
Report
Most enterprise infra tools I've tracked struggle with the validation paradox: enterprises want proven scale, but scale requires enterprise adoption first. Are you seeing traction through bottom-up developer adoption or top-down enterprise sales?
Report
This is the layer everyone is going to need and nobody is building yet. The stat about finding 150 MCP servers where 50 had destructive production access and nobody on the security team knew they existed is wild but also exactly what I'd expect.
Gianmarco's question about multi-agent audit trail attribution is the hard one. When an orchestrator spawns sub-agents that each hit MCP tools, tracking causality through that chain is brutal. The governance layer basically has to reconstruct the agent's decision tree in real time, not just log individual tool calls. Are you doing that already, or is attribution still at the session level right now?
MCP governance is going to be table stakes in 6 months. Good timing on this.
Replies
Told
The 'control plane' framing is smart — as MCP adoption scales across enterprise teams, the governance layer is often an afterthought until something goes wrong. Centralized audit trails for agentic actions in particular will be a real selling point for compliance-heavy orgs. Curious how you handle policy conflicts when multiple teams have deployed agents with overlapping permissions — is that a manual resolution process or something Golf enforces automatically? Also wondering if the tooling surfaces enough context in the audit trail for non-technical stakeholders (legal, infosec) to actually act on what they're seeing.
Most enterprise infra tools I've tracked struggle with the validation paradox: enterprises want proven scale, but scale requires enterprise adoption first. Are you seeing traction through bottom-up developer adoption or top-down enterprise sales?
This is the layer everyone is going to need and nobody is building yet. The stat about finding 150 MCP servers where 50 had destructive production access and nobody on the security team knew they existed is wild but also exactly what I'd expect.
Gianmarco's question about multi-agent audit trail attribution is the hard one. When an orchestrator spawns sub-agents that each hit MCP tools, tracking causality through that chain is brutal. The governance layer basically has to reconstruct the agent's decision tree in real time, not just log individual tool calls. Are you doing that already, or is attribution still at the session level right now?
MCP governance is going to be table stakes in 6 months. Good timing on this.