In this fourth installment of our series on agentic AI system patterns, we address the External SaaS Pattern—integrating SaaS-hosted AI capabilities with enterprise systems securely. As organizations seek to invite powerful AI services into their architecture, they must ensure they’re not also inviting security and privacy troubles. This article focuses on two cross-boundary scenarios and how to manage them using OAuth 2.1, Trust Registries, and Dynamic Client Registration (DCR) with signed software statements. The goal is to equip software architects to safely expose or consume AI functionality across organizational boundaries without sacrificing control, privacy, or auditability.
The External SaaS Integration Challenge
Modern AI agents often need to interface across enterprise and SaaS environments. In an External SaaS Pattern, either the AI agent or the “MCP” server (the AI Model Context Protocol server that provides tools/services to agents) is hosted outside the enterprise. We consider two scenarios:
- Internal AI Agent → External SaaS MCP: An AI agent running inside the enterprise network needs to connect to an external SaaS-hosted MCP server (a service providing AI tool APIs or context).
- External AI Agent → Internal MCP: An AI agent running in a SaaS platform (outside the company) needs to access an internal MCP server or enterprise API to perform actions on behalf of the enterprise.
Each scenario presents security hurdles. The enterprise must ensure that only trusted, authorized agents and services communicate, that sensitive data remains protected in transit, and that all access is auditable. The integration must scale to potentially many agents and services—manual credential handshakes won’t cut it when dozens of AI agents spin up or down daily. We need standardized, automated, OAuth 2.1 based solutions to manage authentication and authorization at scale.
OAuth 2.1 – A Secure Baseline for AI-to-SaaS Integration
OAuth 2.1 provides a modern, hardened baseline for delegating access securely across systems. It isn’t a new protocol but a security-focused evolution of OAuth 2.0 that removes unsafe practices and mandates proven ones. By using OAuth 2.1, architects ensure that only robust flows (e.g. authorization code with PKCE, no implicit grants) are used and that latest best practices are followed. In fact, industry initiatives like the Model Context Protocol (MCP) spec lean heavily on OAuth 2.1 for AI agent authorization.
Key benefits of OAuth 2.1 for our scenario include:
- Standardized AuthZ flows: Agents obtain access tokens to act on resources, with explicit scopes and consent. No sharing of passwords or API keys—instead, short-lived tokens with least privilege.
- Removal of legacy risks: Insecure flows (like the implicit grant) are eliminated and secure defaults (PKCE, refresh token rotation, etc.) are built-in.
- Proven interoperability: OAuth is vendor-neutral and widely supported, making it ideal to bridge disparate systems (enterprise and SaaS).
- Audit and consent tracking: OAuth flows naturally log which client (agent) accessed what, and can integrate with consent dashboards for users or admins.
In both scenarios, we will use OAuth 2.1 as the foundation: the AI agent will act as an OAuth client and the MCP (or API) as a resource server protected by an OAuth authorization server. The twist is ensuring trust in an otherwise open OAuth registration model – that’s where Trust Registries and Dynamic Client Registration come in.
Unlock the Full White Paper:
Fill out the form to get in-depth guidance, technical patterns, and deployment insights designed for enterprise architects building secure, scalable identity.