DAILY NEWS

Stay Ahead, Stay Informed – Every Day

Advertisement
Gartner Says 40% of AI Agents Will Be Decommissioned by 2027. The Kill Switch Is Why.



Gartner predicts that by 2027, 40% of enterprises will demote or decommission autonomous AI agents due to governance gaps identified only after production incidents occur.

The instinct when something goes wrong: kill it. Revoke access. Freeze the wallet. Shut it down.

Cerbos published the counter-argument that CISOs are now adopting: “Allow or revoke. Deploy or kill. That works in a lab. It does not work in a hospital, a bank, a payments network, or any environment where the agent is doing something a human used to do, and stopping it instantly creates a different incident than the one you were trying to prevent.”

The kill switch creates a second incident. The industry needs a dimmer switch.

Why Binary Stop Creates Cascading Failure

An AI agent processing payments is not a standalone program. It is embedded in a workflow. Other agents depend on its outputs. Downstream systems expect its responses. Customers are mid-transaction.

# What happens when you kill an agent mid-workflow:

# Agent: procurement_bot (handles vendor payments)
# Status: anomaly detected (unusual vendor, high amount)
# Instinct: KILL IT

kill_switch_consequences = {
“in_flight_transactions”: 12, # Now orphaned
“downstream_agents_waiting”: 3, # Will timeout and retry
“vendor_expectations”: 4, # Payments promised, never delivered
“reconciliation_gap”: “$14,200”, # Money left in limbo
“sla_violations”: 2, # Customer-facing deadlines missed
“recovery_time”: “4-8 hours”, # Manual intervention required
“second_incident_severity”: “P2” # The kill caused its own incident
}

# The kill switch “solved” a suspicious $800 transaction
# But created $14,200 in orphaned transactions + 2 SLA violations
# Net result: worse than the original anomaly

Enter fullscreen mode

Exit fullscreen mode

mintmcp documented the gap: “Most organizations can monitor what their AI agents are doing but the majority cannot stop them when something goes wrong.” The organizations that CAN stop them discover that stopping creates its own damage.

The Dimmer Switch Pattern

Instead of binary on/off, production agent governance needs graduated response:

from rosud_pay import Governance, DimmerSwitch

# Production-grade agent control (not binary kill):
governance = Governance.configure(
agent=”procurement_bot”,
control=DimmerSwitch(
# Level 5: Full autonomy (normal operation)
level_5={
“daily_limit”: 5000,
“per_tx_max”: 1000,
“categories”: “all_authorized”,
“approval_required”: False
},

# Level 4: Reduced autonomy (first sign of anomaly)
level_4={
“daily_limit”: 2000, # Reduced
“per_tx_max”: 500, # Reduced
“categories”: “existing_vendors_only”,
“approval_required”: False,
“trigger”: “anomaly_score > 0.3”
},

# Level 3: Supervised (confirmed anomaly)
level_3={
“daily_limit”: 500,
“per_tx_max”: 100,
“categories”: “pre_approved_list”,
“approval_required”: “above_50”, # Human approves > $50
“trigger”: “anomaly_score > 0.6”
},

# Level 2: Restricted (investigation active)
level_2={
“daily_limit”: 0, # No new spending
“existing_commitments”: “honor”, # Finish in-flight
“approval_required”: “all”,
“trigger”: “security_team_escalation”
},

# Level 1: Frozen (confirmed breach)
level_1={
“all_transactions”: “blocked”,
“in_flight”: “graceful_complete_or_refund”,
“notification”: “all_downstream_agents”,
“trigger”: “confirmed_compromise”
}
)
)

# Result: anomaly detected → Level 5 to Level 4 in 50ms
# No orphaned transactions. No SLA violations. No second incident.
# Investigation proceeds while agent continues at reduced capacity.
# If confirmed malicious: gradual freeze, not instant kill.

Enter fullscreen mode

Exit fullscreen mode

The 40% Decommission Problem

Gartner’s 40% prediction is not about agent capability. It is about governance response. When the only response to a production incident is “turn it off,” organizations conclude the agent is too risky to operate.

builtin documented the pattern: enterprises now treat AI agents as first-class identities requiring JIT (just-in-time) access and instant kill switches. But the kill switch alone is insufficient. What they actually need:

# What enterprises discover after decommissioning agents:

decommission_reasons = {
“governance_gap_discovered_after_incident”: 0.65, # 65%
“no_graduated_response_available”: 0.52, # 52%
“kill_switch_caused_secondary_damage”: 0.38, # 38%
“could_not_prove_agent_was_safe_to_restart”: 0.44, # 44%
“audit_trail_insufficient_for_root_cause”: 0.41 # 41%
}

# The path from “decommission” to “keep running safely”:
from rosud_pay import AgentLifecycle

lifecycle = AgentLifecycle.configure(
agent=”procurement_bot”,
governance={
# Graduated response (not binary)
“response_levels”: 5,
“auto_escalation”: True,
“auto_de_escalation”: True, # Return to normal after resolution

# Prove safety for restart
“restart_criteria”: {
“root_cause_identified”: True,
“fix_deployed”: True,
“governance_gap_closed”: True,
“audit_trail_complete”: True
},

# Continuous governance (not point-in-time)
“monitoring”: “real_time”,
“anomaly_detection”: “behavioral_baseline”,
“budget_enforcement”: “per_transaction”,

# The key differentiator: DIMMER, not SWITCH
“on_anomaly”: “reduce_autonomy”, # Not “kill”
“on_resolution”: “restore_autonomy” # Automated recovery
}
)

Enter fullscreen mode

Exit fullscreen mode

The Business Case for Graduated Control

lumenova documented the shift: AI governance maturity is now treated like a credit rating. Institutional clients demand proof of model lineage, hallucination rates, and governance capabilities before granting mandates.

The organizations that decommission agents lose the investment. The organizations with graduated control keep agents running safely through incidents:

Incident detected: reduce autonomy (not kill)
Investigation proceeds: agent continues at restricted level
Root cause found: fix deployed, autonomy restored
No second incident. No orphaned transactions. No SLA violations.
Agent stays in production. Investment preserved.

The Bottom Line

The kill switch is the reason 40% of agents will be decommissioned. Not because agents are dangerous. Because the only response to danger is destruction. That is not governance. That is giving up.

rosud-pay provides the dimmer switch for agent spending. Five levels of graduated response. Automatic escalation on anomaly detection. Automatic de-escalation on resolution. In-flight transaction protection. Zero orphaned payments. Zero secondary incidents.

Keep your agents running safely through incidents. Do not kill them and call it governance.

Implement graduated agent control: rosud.com/docs



Source link

Remember Midjourney? It’s Building a Medical Scanning Device That It Says Is Faster Than an MRI



Not so long ago, the name Midjourney was synonymous with AI imagery. (Remember that brief period when everyone you knew was using an AI-generated selfie on social media?) Now the company is attempting to rebrand itself as a wellness brand. In a blog post published Wednesday, titled “A New Era for Midjourney,” the company described its plans for a new project, which it said is “a little weird and a little crazy, but also spectacular and filled with hope.” For starters, it’s working on a body scanner technology, which it says will be faster, cheaper, and less invasive than an MRI. The experience they have in mind sounds like a blend between Han Solo being lowered into the pit at Jabba’s Palace before getting blasted with carbonite and an ayahuasca trip report. Here’s how Midjourney describes it in their blog post: It starts by stepping into a shallow pool of golden light. You then begin to descend into the water. Your body passes through a ring of underwater sensors, each acting like a dolphin, using its echolocation. The sensors send ultrasonic sound waves through your body from every angle. With enough waves, and enough angles, we form an image of what’s happening inside your body. All of this should take no more than a minute, the blog post added. Midjourney envisions a ring of half a million sensors within the scanner, each about the size of a grain of sand, blasting ultrasonic waves at your body and using the reverberations to create a detailed 3-D map of what’s happening inside. “Envisions” is the key word, there: The announcement didn’t make clear what stage of R&D the scanner is currently in, but it did admit that the company still needs to figure out a “major computational task,” namely, how to transform all those noisy waves into static images. The process will reportedly harvest “terabytes of data each second,” based on the idea that the more information you collect about your body, the clearer and more complete a picture you can build of your individual health profile.

“You want as much data as you can get about your health as quickly and as cheaply as possible,” the company wrote. “In other words, you want a technology optimized for getting as many megabytes per second per dollar of information about your body.”

Midjourney is going to great lengths to contrast its body scanner with MRIs, which—as anyone who’s had to go into one will already know—aren’t particularly comfortable. In fact, the company is going so far as to make its scanning technology the centerpiece of a new spa, which it plans to open in downtown San Francisco before the end of next year. It’s here that the “a little weird” part starts to feel like a pretty monumental understatement. The Midjourney Spa, as it’s being called, will have the typical accouterments of a high-end spa, like hot tubs and cold plunges, along with “cozy rooms with pools of golden light which softly scan your body.” Midjourney says the spa will be open 24/7 and will be so comfortable, so inviting, as to make guests almost completely forget about the fact that their insides are being scanned by millions of tiny, ultrasonic sensors.

“The scans are a side-effect,” the company wrote. “You barely think of them when going to the spa. But suddenly, you have a huge library of data about your health.” The announcement added that Midjourney aims to open additional spas in more cities beginning in 2028, and that the company’s next step will be to submit early test results from its body-scanning device to the FDA in the hopes of getting regulatory clearance to build devices with “increased capabilities.”



Source link

MCP Server Design: 3 Principles We Learned in Production



Exposing a tool to an agent over MCP takes ten minutes. Building an MCP server that survives a model you don’t control, on a tight token budget with limited thinking time, is the part nobody warns you about.

We learned the difference shipping our own, consumed by third-party agents whose models we don’t pick. Three principles came out of it, each one we only fully believed after it broke in production:

TL;DR — three MCP server best practices from our trenches:

Fewer tools, narrower surface. Consolidate around the workflow, not the underlying API.

Consistent verbiage everywhere. Same name for the same concept across every input, output, and value on the server.

Validate against the protocol, not just your tests. The schema is the contract; everything else is a hint.

Background

We’ve been iterating on Trent’s MCP server; one public-facing surface for the product, consumed by third-party agents whose models we don’t control. Each iteration taught us something we’d half-believed going in but only fully internalized after it broke. These three principles have crystallized from that work, and they cut against the grain of how it feels to build a server when you’re moving fast. None of these are subtle in hindsight.

1. Fewer Tools, Narrower Surface

The instinct from regular software design, small composable units, single responsibility, doesn’t transfer cleanly to MCP. The consumer of the surface is an LLM with a finite attention budget, not another piece of software. The right size tool is the workflow, the agent is actually performing, not the smallest atomic operation in the underlying API.

Two reasons we’ve been aggressive about consolidation:

Overlap confuses tool selection. The trap usually isn’t tools that look identical; it’s tools that look distinct from the outside, with different names and different framings, but expose largely the same data with minor variations between them. The model has to decide which one is the “right” call for the workflow, and the decision is often arbitrary. On harder tasks it’s wrong in ways that are hard to debug. Consolidating those into a single tool, with the relevant slice exposed as a parameter, removes a degree of freedom the model didn’t need.

Every tool consumes context. If you’re exposing ~20 tools, the schema, name, description for each tool rides in the prompt every turn (once fetched). That’s a substantial chunk of context burned before the agent has done anything. Those tokens compound across a long loop and compete directly with the work the agent is actually trying to do.

Consolidating also tightens the loop for us as engineers. Fewer tools means a smaller surface to test, a smaller set of failure modes to observe, and a more direct path from a customer issue to the tool that caused it. The product gets simpler for the user, the workflow gets simpler for the model, and the codebase gets simpler for us. That alignment is rare; when you can find it, take it.

Concretely: we took our own MCP server from 17 tools down to 11, and the result was visibly better tool usage across the workflows that had been giving us trouble. The model spent fewer cycles on tool selection and the failure modes we were seeing on tighter constraints largely cleaned up. The current published version is trentai-mcp on PyPI.

The push to make this cut came from a pre-launch integration where Trent was exposed to end users through a third party’s chat interface. During testing we kept hitting cases where the chat couldn’t follow our instructions reliably, and tool overlap turned out to be a major contributor.

2. Consistency Across the Surface is a Correctness Property

MCP tool wording across the input schema, output schema, and the output values of every tool on a server needs to be consistent. If one tool calls a field user_id and another calls the same thing customer_id and a third returns accountId, the model has to reconcile that on every call. It mostly does, but reconciliation costs tokens, introduces ambiguity, and shows up as flaky tool calls in unpredictable conditions.

This matters more than it sounds because you don’t always control the model on the other side of the wire. When the MCP server is consumed by a third party, the agent could be running on a small model with a tight token budget and limited thinking time. Inconsistent naming that a frontier model would reason past, a smaller model just fails on. The same surface that looks fine in development collapses in a deployment you can’t see.

We ran into this during the same third-party pre-launch integration mentioned above. We exposed an update_tasks tool that let the chat write progress into a Trent security assessment, but the underlying API used control_id for the response field name and task_id for the input field name. The chat got confused between the two, the tool call failed repeatedly, and it couldn’t debug its way out. We didn’t catch this right away either; the 422s we kept seeing looked like a service-side bug, and we’d been debugging on the service end for a while before realizing the failure was upstream of the API, in the chat’s tool call. Making the naming consistent across input, output, and value cleared it up.

The frame I’ve started landing on is simple: the model on the other side of the wire is a variable you don’t get to pick. So design the surface for the lowest common denominator (consumer) that matters. Capable models reason past inconsistent naming; smaller ones fail on it. Consistency costs you one round of cleanup before you ship; inconsistency gets paid by every consumer, every call, forever.

3. Don’t Trust the Implementation Just Because it Works

This is the principle I’d most like to have learned sooner.

We built the MCP server with an agent. It worked. The tests the agent wrote alongside the implementation passed, our engineer-driven dogfooding ran cleanly, and the manual testing we did in the workflows we cared about all came back green. Beyond the tool selection and naming problems we covered earlier, we kept hitting a different class of failure that we couldn’t reproduce locally: the agent getting input shape wrong, invoking the tool in ways that didn’t match what we’d documented at all.

When we looked under the hood, the implementation hadn’t actually defined input and output schemas in the JSON properties the MCP protocol specifies. The agent that wrote the server had instead stuffed the entire contract, input shape, output shape, examples, into the description string of the tool, as a long comment-like blob. Frontier models read that and inferred the right structure. Smaller models, with less budget for inference, couldn’t. The fix is structural. MCP inputSchema and outputSchema are contracts, not hints. Stuffing them into the description string opts you out of every guarantee the protocol gives you.

Two lessons from that, both worth saying out loud:

Use the structure the protocol gives you. MCP defines inputSchema and outputSchema as discrete, structured fields for a reason: well-built clients use them to validate inputs, constrain agent behavior, and surface errors early. A description is a hint. A schema is a contract.

Agents get you to “working” faster than to “correct.” That gap is widest in unfamiliar territory, and a young protocol counts as unfamiliar territory, however many examples you’ve worked through. The agent picked a path that satisfied the tests it had written itself, evaluated by the same class of model that wrote them. It didn’t pick the path the protocol intended. We caught it because a stricter consumer broke; if we’d never had that consumer, we’d still be carrying the bug.

What we built with these principles

The server I’ve been describing — trentai-mcp — is how Trent shows up inside Claude Code. It runs the full Scan → Judge → Mitigate → Evaluate loop in your editor: surfacing threats relevant to your application’s architecture, prioritizing them against the real risk profile, generating a remediation plan that becomes tasks Claude Code can implement, and tracking how your security posture changes session over session.

MCP is still young, and the patterns for designing servers well are still being worked out across the industry. The three principles above are real world examples of what we’ve learned in production, and these principles are what I’d share with a new teammate, on day one when building a new server.

Originally published on the Trent AI blog — the full piece includes the worked example of the four consolidated tools.



Source link