Comparison
Squidward vs. Manual Governance
Many teams start governing AI tool access with spreadsheets, access-request tickets, and periodic manual reviews. That works at small scale, but it does not hold up once dozens of engineers connect dozens of MCP providers.
| Capability | Manual Governance | Squidward |
|---|---|---|
| Access requests | Tickets, spreadsheets, or Slack threads | Self-service entitlement requests enforced automatically at the gateway |
| Enforcement | Relies on engineers following documented process | Enforced in real time on every MCP call, with no bypass path |
| Review cadence | Periodic, often quarterly, access reviews | Continuous, queryable audit trail available at any time |
| Time to revoke | Hours to days depending on who owns the ticket queue | Immediate — revoke a token or entitlement and it takes effect on the next call |
| Scale | Breaks down as providers and teams multiply | Centralized policy engine scales with your integration catalog |
Where manual process still fits
Manual review still has a place — for example, approving a new integration before it is added to your catalog. Squidward's require-approval policy type is designed for exactly that: keep a human in the loop for the decisions that need it, and automate enforcement for everything else.
Explore MCP governance
See how entitlements, policy, and audit logging work together.