Use this worksheet to evaluate MCP servers before connecting them to production workflows. The goal is not to find the most feature-rich server; the goal is to choose a server your IT and governance teams can safely operate.
Read this together with Model Context Protocol for Enterprise Teams so architecture and security decisions stay aligned.
How to score
- Score each criterion from 1 (poor) to 5 (strong).
- Mark any red-line failures as blockers regardless of total score.
- Keep evidence links (docs, test logs, security notes) in the final column.
MCP server selection worksheet
| Area | Criterion | Score (1-5) | Red-line failure? | Evidence / notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security | OAuth/OIDC or equivalent auth support | |||
| Security | Tool-level allowlist and scope controls | |||
| Security | Read/write separation possible | |||
| Security | Prompt-injection sanitization strategy documented | |||
| Governance | Audit log fields include tool, args hash, actor, timestamp | |||
| Governance | Versioning for server config and policy mappings | |||
| Governance | Incident response owner and escalation path defined | |||
| Operations | SLO/SLA expectations documented | |||
| Operations | Rate limits and retry behavior are predictable | |||
| Operations | Monitoring hooks (errors, latency, call volume) available | |||
| Integration | Works with required model/runtime stack | |||
| Integration | Supports required data sources/tools with least privilege | |||
| Cost | Pricing model matches expected call pattern | |||
| Cost | Cost controls or quotas available | |||
| Vendor fit | Maintenance cadence and support maturity |
IT checklist (go/no-go)
- [ ] Authentication method approved by security team.
- [ ] Least-privilege scopes mapped per workflow ID.
- [ ] Logging fields validated in a staging replay drill.
- [ ] Prompt-injection test cases passed on representative data.
- [ ] Human escalation rules defined for risky write actions.
- [ ] Rollback path tested if server is unavailable or misconfigured.
- [ ] Ownership documented in governance RACI.
Optional weighted model
If your team needs weighted scoring, use:
- Security: 35%
- Governance: 25%
- Operations: 20%
- Integration: 15%
- Cost and vendor fit: 5%
Weighted scoring helps compare candidates, but red-line failures still override total score.
Decision log template
Copy this block into your internal approval ticket:
- Selected server:
- Workflows in scope (v1):
- Approved scopes/tools:
- Known constraints:
- Red-line checks passed: Yes / No
- Pilot start date:
- Review date (30-day):
Common mistakes to avoid
- Selecting a server based only on demo speed.
- Enabling broad write scopes in the first rollout.
- Shipping without replayable audit evidence.
- Ignoring ownership for configuration drift and incidents.
Start with read-only or low-risk use cases, then expand scope only after eval, observability, and governance signals are stable. For security controls after selection, see Securing MCP and Agent Tools.