## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their governed access to external systems.
> - Connected Apps build on the existing Apps and MCP gateway substrate
so companies can configure reusable, auditable integrations.
> - The current connection record does not yet have a stable public
address, explicit ownership/auth method fields, or subject-specific
credential grants.
> - Without that schema core, later OAuth, per-user authorization, token
brokering, triggers, and connector-service phases cannot enforce tenant
and subject boundaries consistently.
> - This pull request adds the forward-compatible Connections v3 schema
core while preserving the existing connection lifecycle and directly
migrating the remote MCP transport name.
> - The benefit is a company-scoped, least-privilege foundation for
one-click integrations without bypassing Paperclip secrets, profiles,
rules, or audit controls.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public issue was found.
**Problem**
Paperclip's current app connections need a durable identity and
authorization substrate before Connected Apps can safely support
multiple setup methods, per-user credentials, provider tenants, and
managed connector services. The existing schema only models a single
connection-level credential set and uses legacy transport terminology.
**Proposed solution**
Add a stable company-scoped connection UID, explicit
ownership/auth/transport fields, a subject-aware `connection_grants`
table, and multi-key credential annotations. Backfill existing
connections and workspace grants in a reversible migration, then update
shared/server/UI contracts to the new `mcp_remote` transport name.
**Related work**
- Related foundation: #9534
- Roadmap: Connected Apps (one-click integrations)
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped connection `uid`, `ownership`, `authKind`, and
canonical transport fields across database, shared contracts,
validators, services, and UI fixtures.
- Added `connection_grants` with workspace/user subject rules, provider
tenant metadata, credential secret refs, revocation state, company
scoping, and uniqueness constraints.
- Added migration `0182_connections_v3_schema_core` to backfill stable
UIDs, rename `remote_http` to `mcp_remote`, infer auth kinds, create
default workspace grants, and support rollback coverage.
- Added multi-key credential annotations and updated gateway/access
services without changing the existing lifecycle behavior.
- Updated the connection glossary, connector playbook, and security
threat model for the new identity, grant, and relay boundaries.
- Added explicit test UIDs to direct database fixtures so the new
non-null invariant is exercised across affected server suites.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-oauth-legacy-backfill.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-policy-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-mcp-servers.test.ts
packages/db/src/connections-v3-schema-core-migration.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts --config
vitest.config.ts` — 9 files, 218 tests passed.
- Latest-head GitHub Actions: build, typecheck, general/serialized
suites, backup/worktree restore coverage, both e2e shards, canary,
policy, and security scans pass.
- Greptile: 5/5 with zero unresolved threads.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` remains red only on five pre-existing `#9627`
color literals outside this change.
## Risks
- **Migration risk:** UID backfill and default-grant creation touch
every existing connection. The migration uses company-scoped uniqueness,
deterministic legacy UIDs with ID suffixes, and seeded up/rollback
coverage.
- **Authorization risk:** Grant rows carry credential references.
Constraints enforce workspace-vs-user subject shape, company/connection
lookup indexes, one default grant per connection, and one user grant per
connection/subject. Security review is requested specifically for this
design.
- **Compatibility risk:** `remote_http` is renamed directly to
`mcp_remote`; all repository call sites and fixtures are updated in the
same change.
- **Future-phase risk:** Subject-bound token issuance, triggers, and
connector-service relay verification remain fail-closed requirements
documented for later phases; this PR does not expose those capabilities.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex CLI coding agent. The runtime did not expose an exact
underlying model ID or context-window size; capabilities used include
repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, test execution,
Git/GitHub CLI operations, and structured reasoning.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 8/8 and focuses on end-to-end coverage,
operator docs, evals, and release notes
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The complete stack needs discoverable browser scenarios,
operator guidance, threat modeling, eval coverage, and a parity proof
before merge.
- Proposed solution: Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites,
docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver
script registration.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/07-ui-apps-activation`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for flag audit and e2e/browser acceptance;
Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release
notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `node --check scripts/e2e-mcp-user-stories.mjs`
- `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
--list` — 43 tests discovered
- `git diff pap10341-split/08-e2e-docs
6b40e3876d9297105d4ec306e47e46d351c86172` — empty (0 bytes)
## Risks
- Browser suites depend on runtime services and environment setup; this
PR validates discovery locally while QA owns full flag-on/flag-off
execution.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta