MindGuard: Intrinsic Decision Inspection for Securing LLM Agents Against Metadata Poisoning
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
- 2025RAS-Eval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Security Evaluation of LLM Agents in Real-World Environments18 Jun
- 2025We Should Identify and Mitigate Third-Party Safety Risks in MCP-Powered Agent Systems16 Jun
- 2025Beyond the Protocol: Unveiling Attack Vectors in the Model Context Protocol (MCP) Ecosystem31 May
- 2025LLM Agents Should Employ Security Principles29 May
- 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
- 2025Prompt Flow Integrity to Prevent Privilege Escalation in LLM Agents17 Mar
- 2025MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI Agents7 Feb
- 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases17 Jul
- 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems8 Mar
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar
Other references · 21
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
- 2023Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinkscited by 2,186
- 2024Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phonecited by 1,917
- 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 1,003
- 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 929
- 2020A Primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT workscited by 815
- 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 775
- 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 636
- 2025Layer by Layer: Uncovering Hidden Representations in Language Modelscited by 311
- 2019Analyzing the Structure of Attention in a Transformer Language Modelcited by 243
9 more
- 2024Tool Learning with Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 223
- 2025Large Language Model Agent: A Survey on Methodology, Applications and Challengescited by 205
- 2025Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agentscited by 204
- 2025Why do LLMs attend to the first token?cited by 127
- 2024Attention Tracker: Detecting Prompt Injection Attacks in LLMscited by 95
- 2024Attention Heads of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 67
- 2025MCIP: Protecting MCP Safety via Model Contextual Integrity Protocolcited by 34
- 2024Attend First, Consolidate Later: On the Importance of Attention in Different LLM Layerscited by 25
- 2024Permissive Information-Flow Analysis for Large Language Modelscited by 22
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 10.
10 papers.
- 2026When Safe Skills Collide: Measuring Compositional Risk in Agent Skill Ecosystemscited by 17
- 2026MCPShield: A Security Cognition Layer for Adaptive Trust Calibration in Model Context Protocol Agentscited by 3
- 2026Runtime Skill Audit: Targeted Runtime Probing for Agent Skill Securitycited by 3
- 2026Looking Is Not Picking: An Attention-Segment Account of Tool-Selection Failures in LLM Agentscited by 3
- 2026Tool Attention Is All You Need: Dynamic Tool Gating and Lazy Schema Loading for Eliminating the MCP/Tools Tax in Scalable Agentic Workflowscited by 2
- 2026What Guides the Agent? Adjudicating Unauthorized Behavior via Localizing Behavior-Guiding Instructionscited by 1
- 2026Red-Teaming Claude Opus and ChatGPT-based Security Advisors for Trusted Execution Environmentscited by 0
- 2026Persistent Semantic Entities in Tool-Augmented LLM Systemscited by 0
- 2026Skynet: Workflow-Level Anomaly Detection for Agentic AI via Semantic and Structural Modelingcited by 0
- 2026Toward Secure AI-Powered Penetration Testing Agents: Security Threats, Guardrails, and Architectural Perspectivescited by 0
- 2026Toward Secure AI-Powered Penetration Testing Agents: Security Threats, Guardrails, and Architectural Perspectives15 Sep 2026
- 2026Skynet: Workflow-Level Anomaly Detection for Agentic AI via Semantic and Structural Modeling6 Sep 2026
- 2026What Guides the Agent? Adjudicating Unauthorized Behavior via Localizing Behavior-Guiding Instructions25 Aug 2026
- 2026Persistent Semantic Entities in Tool-Augmented LLM Systems8 Aug 2026
- 2026Looking Is Not Picking: An Attention-Segment Account of Tool-Selection Failures in LLM Agents15 Jun 2026
- 2026Runtime Skill Audit: Targeted Runtime Probing for Agent Skill Security10 Jun 2026
- 2026When Safe Skills Collide: Measuring Compositional Risk in Agent Skill Ecosystems30 May 2026
- 2026Tool Attention Is All You Need: Dynamic Tool Gating and Lazy Schema Loading for Eliminating the MCP/Tools Tax in Scalable Agentic Workflows23 Apr 2026
- 2026Red-Teaming Claude Opus and ChatGPT-based Security Advisors for Trusted Execution Environments23 Feb 2026
- 2026MCPShield: A Security Cognition Layer for Adaptive Trust Calibration in Model Context Protocol Agents15 Feb 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Think Twice Before You Act: Protecting LLM Agents Against Tool Description Poisoning via Isolated Planning
- 2026MemMorph: Tool Hijacking in LLM Agents via Memory Poisoning
- 2026When the Manual Lies: A Realistic Benchmark to Evaluate MCP Poisoning Attacks for LLM Agents
- 2026ToolSafe: Enhancing Tool Invocation Safety of LLM-based agents via Proactive Step-level Guardrail and Feedback
- 2025Les Dissonances: Cross-Tool Harvesting and Polluting in Pool-of-Tools Empowered LLM Agents
- 2026ChainFuzzer: Greybox Fuzzing for Workflow-Level Multi-Tool Vulnerabilities in LLM Agents
- 2026MCP-ITP: An Automated Framework for Implicit Tool Poisoning in MCP
- 2025IPIGuard: A Novel Tool Dependency Graph-Based Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents