OAuth scopes don’t equal secure MCP authorization

The MCP Authorization Specification relies on OAuth for the scopes that define the set of actions an authorized client is allowed to take on behalf of the user. Scopes are a useful part of securing MCP servers. They define broad capability sets a client is allowed to exercise. But if you rely on scopes alone to enforce authorization for MCP tools, you will run into real limitations when building secure, multi-user, role-aware systems that require fine-grained access controls.

OAuth scopes were designed to signal high-level API privileges, like “read contacts” or “write calendar”. They work well for delegated access where a client needs permission to call an API on a user’s behalf. The challenge is that MCP authorization is a more nuanced control problem than delegation can solve on its own:

• Scopes control what area of functionality you can touch
• MCP authorization must control who can run which tool under what conditions

Scopes don’t provide the structure needed to map least-privileged user roles to permitted actions in a dynamic tool ecosystem. This matches general OAuth guidance that scopes are for broad API permission surfaces, not fine-grained role models.

Tokens are static, MCP policies must be dynamic

OAuth tokens are static snapshots of what the client was allowed to do at the time they were issued. Once a token is minted, those permissions don’t change until it expires.

But user roles and organizational policies are constantly evolving. Users get promoted, responsibilities shift, standards are introduced and tool access needs to adapt immediately. Embedding all permissions into a token means:

• You either issue a multitude of tokens for every variation of policy combinations
• Or you accept the risk of tokens that are too permissive and too persistent

Neither is ideal. True RBAC systems let the server evaluate user role and permissions at runtime, instead of inherently trusting a pre-issued token.

Scopes quickly take on a life of their own

If you try to model every MCP tool with a distinct OAuth scope, you quickly hit practical limits:

• OAuth scopes become big and unwieldy
• Tokens grow large because JWT headers must stay within HTTP size limits
• Every new tool or operation requires a new scope definition.

This leads to scope sprawl that is hard to manage and consumes token space inefficiently. It’s a common anti-pattern in APIs that start with scopes and then try to extend them to fine-grained permissions.

Scopes lack contextual awareness

Scopes say what, but not when, why, or on whose behalf.

Consider a scenario where:

• Alice can use the billing:update tool for her own projects.
• Bob can use the same tool across all projects.

Both might have a scope like mcp.billing.update. Scopes alone cannot distinguish context such as:

• Which project the user is targeting.
• Whether the action is allowed for this user on this resource.

True RBAC systems embed this logic either server-side or via richer policy languages. Scopes cannot express it without becoming deeply unwieldy.

Scopes don’t capture intent or sequencing

An MCP server must consider the semantics of multi-step operations. A single scoped call might be valid, but a sequence of calls could exceed what the user should actually be allowed to do (e.g., a low-privilege user chaining several tool calls to achieve a high-impact effect). That kind of sequence-aware authorization is outside the scope (pun intended) of simple OAuth scopes.

Roles are essential

In RBAC, the unit of authorization is the role: a named bundle of permissions aligned with organizational responsibilities. Scopes are not roles, they are just flags on a token. In contrast, RBAC systems typically support:

• Role hierarchies (admin > editor > viewer)
• Permission grouping
• Dynamic reassignment

Scopes do none of this. At best, scopes can mirror roles, but only if you duplicate role logic into scope names which quickly becomes messy and brittle.

Scopes and server-side RBAC: The right balance

OAuth scopes are useful for coarse access boundaries because they help a resource server quickly determine if a client has broad permission to a domain (e.g., “this client is allowed to talk to MCP billing tools”).

But fine-grained, role-aware MCP authorization belongs on the server, where user identity, role context and organizational policy can be enforced at the time of the request.

This hybrid approach combines:

• Scopes for binding tokens to broad capabilities
• RBAC/permissions enforced in the MCP server at the tool level

It gets you strong security, manageable tokens and flexible policy enforcement.

Conclusion

OAuth scopes solve an important part of the authorization puzzle: delegated capability. But they are only one piece. MCP access control that relies on scopes alone will struggle with:

• Dynamic user roles
• Per-tool permissions
• Contextual resource access
• Runtime policy evaluation

To do MCP authorization properly, you need scopes for the big picture and server-side RBAC for least-privilege enforcement.

Get started today with P0 Security, www.P0.dev

‍