mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

MindGuard: Intrinsic Decision Inspection for Securing LLM Agents Against Metadata Poisoning

arXiv 2508.20412 ↗First posted 28 Aug 2025cs.CRcited by 10

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is increasingly adopted to standardize the interaction between LLM agents and external tools. However, this trend introduces a new threat: Tool Poisoning Attacks (TPA), where tool metadata is poisoned to induce the agent to perform unauthorized operations. Existing defenses that primarily focus on behavior-level analysis are fundamentally ineffective against TPA, as poisoned tools need not be executed, leaving no behavioral trace to monitor. Thus, we propose MindGuard, a decision-level guardrail for LLM agents, providing provenance tracking of call decisions, policy-agnostic detection, and poisoning source attribution against TPA. While fully explaining LLM decision remains challenging, our empirical findings uncover a strong correlation between LLM attention mechanisms and tool invocation decisions. Therefore, we choose attention as an empirical signal for decision tracking and formalize this as the Decision Dependence Graph (DDG), which models the LLM's reasoning process as a weighted, directed graph where vertices represent logical concepts and edges quantify the attention-based dependencies. We further design robust DDG construction and graph-based anomaly analysis mechanisms that efficiently detect and attribute TPA attacks. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that MindGuard achieves 94%-99% average precision in detecting poisoned invocations, 95%-100% attribution accuracy, with processing times under one second and no additional token cost. Moreover, DDG can be viewed as an adaptation of the classical Program Dependence Graph (PDG), providing a solid foundation for applying traditional security policies at the decision level.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 31 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 2025.

Builds on

31 of 60 references.

Closest ancestors · 10

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025RAS-Eval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Security Evaluation of LLM Agents in Real-World Environments18 Jun
  2. 2025We Should Identify and Mitigate Third-Party Safety Risks in MCP-Powered Agent Systems16 Jun
  3. 2025Beyond the Protocol: Unveiling Attack Vectors in the Model Context Protocol (MCP) Ecosystem31 May
  4. 2025LLM Agents Should Employ Security Principles29 May
  5. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
  6. 2025Prompt Flow Integrity to Prevent Privilege Escalation in LLM Agents17 Mar
  7. 2025MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI Agents7 Feb
  8. 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases17 Jul
  9. 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems8 Mar
  10. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar

Other references · 21

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  3. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  4. 2023Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinkscited by 2,186
  5. 2024Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phonecited by 1,917
  6. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 1,003
  7. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 929
  8. 2020A Primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT workscited by 815
  9. 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 775
  10. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 636
  11. 2025Layer by Layer: Uncovering Hidden Representations in Language Modelscited by 311
  12. 2019Analyzing the Structure of Attention in a Transformer Language Modelcited by 243
9 more
  1. 2024Tool Learning with Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 223
  2. 2025Large Language Model Agent: A Survey on Methodology, Applications and Challengescited by 205
  3. 2025Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agentscited by 204
  4. 2025Why do LLMs attend to the first token?cited by 127
  5. 2024Attention Tracker: Detecting Prompt Injection Attacks in LLMscited by 95
  6. 2024Attention Heads of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 67
  7. 2025MCIP: Protecting MCP Safety via Model Contextual Integrity Protocolcited by 34
  8. 2024Attend First, Consolidate Later: On the Importance of Attention in Different LLM Layerscited by 25
  9. 2024Permissive Information-Flow Analysis for Large Language Modelscited by 22

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 10.

10 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Think Twice Before You Act: Protecting LLM Agents Against Tool Description Poisoning via Isolated Planning
  2. 2026MemMorph: Tool Hijacking in LLM Agents via Memory Poisoning
  3. 2026When the Manual Lies: A Realistic Benchmark to Evaluate MCP Poisoning Attacks for LLM Agents
  4. 2026ToolSafe: Enhancing Tool Invocation Safety of LLM-based agents via Proactive Step-level Guardrail and Feedback
  5. 2025Les Dissonances: Cross-Tool Harvesting and Polluting in Pool-of-Tools Empowered LLM Agents
  6. 2026ChainFuzzer: Greybox Fuzzing for Workflow-Level Multi-Tool Vulnerabilities in LLM Agents
  7. 2026MCP-ITP: An Automated Framework for Implicit Tool Poisoning in MCP
  8. 2025IPIGuard: A Novel Tool Dependency Graph-Based Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents