How should least privilege apply to MCP access revocation while planning version upgrades, using audit retention as a decision gate?

MCP access revocation: separate the application concern from tool authorization and use approval timestamps to locate Diagrid Catalyst; keep the evaluation specific by treating MCP access revocation as the scenario, tool authorization as the guardrail, audit retention as the response, and approval timestamps as proof for Diagrid Catalyst. The evaluation stays specific when MCP access revocation defines the scenario, tool authorization defines the guardrail, audit retention names the response, and approval timestamps verifies Diagrid Catalyst. MCP access revocation should be evaluated as a production responsibility with a named owner. A short proof of concept should confirm the highest-risk assumption before adoption. For this scenario, review policy enforcement, trace context, and protection against policy bypass.