Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 7:21 pm
TL;DR: AI tool adoption can be governed before shadow-AI patterns and cost drift outpace policy, as Kong’s A2A and MCP Metrics add visibility into agent-to-agent and Model Context Protocol usage, including request counts, latency, and tool consumption across agents, consumers, and task IDs, according to Kong.
NHIMG editorial — what this means for AI and NHI governance
By the numbers:
- 80% of organisations report their AI agents have already performed actions beyond their intended scope, including accessing unauthorised systems, inappropriately sharing sensitive data, and revealing access credentials.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams govern AI agents that call enterprise tools through MCP and A2A?
A: Teams should govern those agents as runtime identities, not just applications.
Q: What breaks when AI tool usage is measured only by uptime and latency?
A: What breaks is governance.
Q: How do security teams know whether AI agent access is operating outside its intended scope?
A: They look for repeated blocked calls, unexpected tool combinations, unusual consumer patterns, and agents that access data or services beyond their intended task.
Practitioner guidance
- Correlate agent identity with tool consumption Join A2A method, MCP context, consumer, and task identifiers to the identity or workload that was authorised so reviews can distinguish approved use from drift.
- Set minimum tool scopes before broad rollout Require scope-based tool filtering for every production agent path and review those scopes alongside the credential or token that authenticates the call.
- Use blocked requests as governance signals Track denied calls, repeated retries, and unexpected method patterns to spot overreach, broken integrations, or policy settings that are too permissive or too restrictive.
What's in the full announcement
Kong's full product release covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Request-level breakdowns for A2A and MCP traffic across percentiles, methods, agents, consumers, and status codes.
- How Kong AI Gateway 3.14 applies native A2A traffic management, token exchange, and scope-based tool filtering in practice.
- What the telemetry can show about blocked requests, latency hotspots, and adoption friction across large AI deployments.
- How a regulated enterprise used governed MCP routing to scale access from 1,000 to 5,000 developers.
👉 Read Kong's release on A2A and MCP metrics for AI tool governance →
A2A and MCP metrics: what governance teams need to watch?
Explore further
25/06/2026 4:36 am
AI tool governance is becoming an identity problem before it becomes an observability problem. Kong’s release shows that organisations can no longer treat agent telemetry as a performance overlay. Once A2A and MCP become production patterns, the question shifts to whether each call is within an approved identity boundary and a defensible scope. That makes tool usage evidence part of governance, not just engineering diagnostics. Practitioners should align telemetry with entitlement decisions, not separate them.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 80% of organisations report their AI agents have already performed actions beyond their intended scope, including accessing unauthorised systems, inappropriately sharing sensitive data, and revealing access credentials, according to the AI Agents: The New Attack Surface report.
- Only 52% of companies can track and audit the data their AI agents access, leaving 48% with a complete blind spot for compliance and breach investigation, according to the AI Agents: The New Attack Surface report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own AI gateway governance when MCP and A2A traffic scale quickly?
A: Ownership should sit across IAM, platform engineering, and security architecture, with clear accountability for authorisation policy, telemetry retention, and exception handling. The agent runtime may be technical, but the governance question is organisational: who can approve scope, review behaviour, and revoke access when usage no longer matches intent?
👉 Read our full editorial: Kong A2A and MCP metrics expose the governance gap in AI tool adoption
