Acceptance criteria
Support applicable Windows, macOS and Linux patterns, allow endpoint-integrated or remote placement, and define traffic coverage for each.
Why it matters
Different MCP clients need different gateway placements to be covered.
How to verify
The vendor shows local and remote MCP gateway placement and documents what each covers.
OWASP adoption context
Citizen-built, code-executing and MCP-extended workflows motivate local or remote gateway placement; these contexts do not necessarily involve agent-to-agent communication.
Framework mappings
Documented MCP gateway placement identifies where component controls can operate and which traffic they cover. It supplies architecture evidence rather than proof of effective authentication or inspection.
Operating-system patterns, local or remote gateways and their dependencies provide computing-resource information for AI deployment. Availability of placement options does not establish secure operation.
An MCP gateway’s location and coverage can establish an inspection boundary for runtime-fetched servers and other agentic supply-chain components. Placement alone neither assesses their trustworthiness nor prevents malicious components.