Catalog
concept#Architecture#Software Engineering#Governance#Integration

Model Context Protocol (MCP)

Protocol for formal alignment of model boundaries, contracts and responsibilities across domains.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a structural pattern for formally aligning model boundaries, domain contexts, and interfaces across teams and systems.
Emerging
Medium

Classification

  • Medium
  • Organizational
  • Organizational
  • Intermediate

Technical context

Schema registry (e.g., Confluent Schema Registry)API gateway for contract enforcementCI/CD pipelines with compatibility checks

Principles & goals

Clear delineation of model responsibility and ownership.Explicit contracts and versioning between contexts.Minimize implicit translation logic via defined adapters.
Build
Domain, Team

Use cases & scenarios

Compromises

  • Overly rigid contracts hinder necessary flexibility.
  • Insufficient tests lead to compatibility issues.
  • Missing ownership for translation adapters causes delays.
  • Start with a lean set of critical contracts and iterate.
  • Maintain automated regression tests against reference implementations.
  • Provide documentation of translation rules and example transformations.

I/O & resources

  • Existing data model and API specifications
  • Stakeholder and ownership matrix
  • Test and compatibility tooling
  • Formalized model contract with versioning rules
  • Adapter and translation specifications
  • Governance checklist for model changes

Description

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a structural pattern for formally aligning model boundaries, domain contexts, and interfaces across teams and systems. It specifies binding rules for contracts, naming conventions, translation logic, and versioning strategies to reduce inconsistencies, integration effort, and ownership conflicts across domains.

✔

  • Reduces integration effort and unexpected side effects.
  • Improves accountability and governance when models evolve.
  • Enables controlled evolution and versioning across domains.

✖

  • Requires disciplined governance and continuous maintenance.
  • Can introduce initial overhead in effort and documentation.
  • Not suitable for very simple or monolithic systems.

  • Integration error rate

    Share of failed integration runs after model changes.

  • Time-to-compatibility

    Time from change to full compatibility approval.

  • Contract coverage

    Percentage of critical interfaces covered by MCP contracts.

Microservice commerce platform

Teams defined MCP contracts between order and inventory domains to avoid stock inconsistencies.

Data platform with multiple consumers

The platform used MCP rules for versioning and translating schemas for different consumers.

Organizational domain separation

During a reorganization MCP helped to formally establish ownership and integration responsibility.

1

Iteratively define a minimal MCP catalog for critical interfaces.

2

Introduce contract tests and automated compatibility checks.

3

Establish review and governance routines for model changes.

⚠️ Technical debt & bottlenecks

  • Untested adapter collections without central documentation.
  • Outdated contract specifications without version labeling.
  • Missing automated monitoring for model incompatibilities.
Adapter implementationGovernance reviewTesting and compatibility effort
  • A team enforces rigid contracts and blocks necessary local adjustments.
  • Using MCP only as documentation without automated tests and enforcement.
  • Trying to standardize all interfaces at once instead of iterating.
  • Underestimating the test effort for translation and adapter logic.
  • Ignoring backward compatibility in versioning.
  • Establishing governance only on paper without enforcement mechanisms.
Domain modeling and DDD basicsAPI design and versioning strategiesTest automation and integration testing
Interoperability across domainsTraceable responsibilitiesScalable integration and migration paths
  • • Existing legacy schemas with limited changability
  • • Missing central schema registry or catalog
  • • Limited organizational governance for contracts