The protocol docs show MCP can be deployed over either gRPC or HTTP/SSE. From a security tooling and operational visibility perspective, which transport layer gives us a better advantage?

My initial analysis leans toward gRPC, but I want to vet the assumptions. The security properties I'm considering:

* **Observability:** Our existing SIEM and NDR stacks have deep parsers for HTTP. gRPC traffic, being binary protobuf over HTTP/2, is often opaque without the .proto files. Does this mean we're blind, or do the tooling extensions for gRPC telemetry (e.g., service mesh integrations) provide richer metadata?
* **Authentication & AuthZ Integration:** gRPC has native support for TLS/mTLS and per-call credential propagation, which aligns with service-mesh patterns. HTTP/SSE might rely more on application-layer tokens. Which is easier to enforce and audit at the infrastructure layer?
* **Message Integrity & Tampering:** Both use TLS for transport security. Is there any inherent protocol-level advantage for signing or validating individual messages in one over the other, especially for audit trails?

I'm particularly interested in the incident response angle. If we need to reconstruct an agent's actions or verify tool calls, what telemetry is inherently available from each transport? For example:
- Can we easily log full gRPC method names and status codes at the load balancer?
- Does HTTP/SSE, with its text-based event streams, offer any advantage for real-time inspection or DLP-like scanning mid-session?

What's the community's experience? Have you instrumented MCP servers/clients on both transports and compared the security logging and control points?