Semantic Attacks on Tool-Augmented LLMs: Securing the Model Context Protocol Against Descriptor-Level Manipulation
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external tools via tool descriptors, thereby extending their capabilities for task execution, autonomous decision-making, and multi-agent coordination. Existing MCP deployments treat tool descriptors as trusted metadata, despite their direct integration into the LLM reasoning context. This introduces a previously underexplored semantic attack surface. Current defenses primarily target prompt injection, neglecting descriptor-level manipulation that can bias tool selection and downstream reasoning. To address this gap, we formalize three descriptor-driven attack classes: Tool Poisoning, Shadowing, and Rug Pull. We propose a layered defense solution that integrates descriptor integrity verification, pre-context semantic vetting with an auxiliary LLM, and lightweight runtime guardrails, without requiring model retraining. We evaluate GPT-5.3, DeepSeek-V3, and LLaMA-3.5 across eight prompting strategies in controlled, adversarial MCP scenarios in which tool metadata is manipulated to simulate realistic attacks. Results demonstrate that descriptor manipulation can substantially alter tool-selection behavior, producing unsafe tool invocations in up to 36% of trials under baseline configurations. The proposed full-stack mitigation reduces unsafe invocations to 15% while increasing the block rate to 74%, demonstrating substantial improvement in resistance to descriptor-driven attacks. Cross-model analysis further reveals significant differences in robustness, latency, and sensitivity to descriptor-level manipulation across LLM architectures and prompting strategies. This study provides a controlled cross-model evaluation of descriptor-level threats and mitigation strategies in tool-calling LLM systems, establishing an empirical foundation for deploying secure and resilient tool-augmented LLMs.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 19 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Dec 2025.
Builds on
19 of 34 references.
Closest ancestors · 6
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Automatic Red Teaming LLM-based Agents with Model Context Protocol Tools25 Sep
- 2025MCPTox: A Benchmark for Tool Poisoning Attack on Real-World MCP Servers19 Aug
- 2025From Prompt Injections to Protocol Exploits: Threats in LLM-Powered AI Agents Workflows29 Jun
- 2025A Survey of LLM-Driven AI Agent Communication: Protocols, Security Risks, and Defense Countermeasures24 Jun
- 2025Design Patterns for Securing LLM Agents against Prompt Injections10 Jun
- 2025MCP Safety Audit: LLMs with the Model Context Protocol Allow Major Security Exploits2 Apr
Other references · 13
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directionscited by 257
- 2023When Large Language Models Meet Personalization: Perspectives of Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 89
- 2024Large Language Models for Cyber Security: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 65
- 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP) at First Glance: Studying the Security and Maintainability of MCP Serverscited by 62
- 2025Enterprise-Grade Security for the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Frameworks and Mitigation Strategiescited by 42
- 2023The Philosopher's Stone: Trojaning Plugins of Large Language Modelscited by 31
- 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Communication, Network, and Service Management: Application Insights, Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 25
- 2025ETDI: Mitigating Tool Squatting and Rug Pull Attacks in Model Context Protocol (MCP) by using OAuth-Enhanced Tool Definitions and Policy-Based Access Controlcited by 18
- 2025Survey of LLM Agent Communication with MCP: A Software Design Pattern Centric Reviewcited by 14
- 2025SecurityLingua: Efficient Defense of LLM Jailbreak Attacks via Security-Aware Prompt Compressioncited by 12
1 more
- 2025Prompt Injection 2.0: Hybrid AI Threatscited by 12
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 12.
12 papers.
- 2026Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic Coding Assistants: A Systematic Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Skills, Tools, and Protocol Ecosystemscited by 30
- 2026Lingering Authority: Revocable Resource-and-Effect Capabilities for Coding Agentscited by 5
- 2026MCPShield: A Security Cognition Layer for Adaptive Trust Calibration in Model Context Protocol Agentscited by 3
- 2026Intent-Governed Tool Authorization for AI Agentscited by 3
- 2026LLM-enabled Applications Require System-Level Threat Monitoringcited by 2
- 2026A Formal Security Framework for MCP-Based AI Agents: Threat Taxonomy, Verification Models, and Defense Mechanismscited by 2
- 2026MCP-DPT: A Defense-Placement Taxonomy and Coverage Analysis for Model Context Protocol Securitycited by 1
- 2026CASCADE: A Component Ablation and Corpus Audit of a Layered Local Defense for MCP-Based Systemscited by 1
- 2026Understanding How Enterprises Adopt the Model Context Protocol for LLM-Driven Software Engineeringcited by 0
- 2026Unicode TAG-Block Concealment of Tool-Metadata Payloads in the Model Context Protocol: An Approval-View Fidelity Gap Across Three Independent Server Implementationscited by 0
- 2026Beyond the Mandate: A Systematic Security Analysis of the Agent Payments Protocol (AP2)cited by 0
- 2026When Valid Tool Calls Change Meaning: Formation-Consistent Dispatch for LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026When Valid Tool Calls Change Meaning: Formation-Consistent Dispatch for LLM Agents28 Sep 2026
- 2026Beyond the Mandate: A Systematic Security Analysis of the Agent Payments Protocol (AP2)24 Aug 2026
- 2026Unicode TAG-Block Concealment of Tool-Metadata Payloads in the Model Context Protocol: An Approval-View Fidelity Gap Across Three Independent Server Implementations7 Jul 2026
- 2026Intent-Governed Tool Authorization for AI Agents22 Jun 2026
- 2026Lingering Authority: Revocable Resource-and-Effect Capabilities for Coding Agents21 Jun 2026
- 2026Understanding How Enterprises Adopt the Model Context Protocol for LLM-Driven Software Engineering8 Jun 2026
- 2026CASCADE: A Component Ablation and Corpus Audit of a Layered Local Defense for MCP-Based Systems18 Apr 2026
- 2026MCP-DPT: A Defense-Placement Taxonomy and Coverage Analysis for Model Context Protocol Security8 Apr 2026
- 2026A Formal Security Framework for MCP-Based AI Agents: Threat Taxonomy, Verification Models, and Defense Mechanisms7 Apr 2026
- 2026LLM-enabled Applications Require System-Level Threat Monitoring23 Feb 2026
- 2026MCPShield: A Security Cognition Layer for Adaptive Trust Calibration in Model Context Protocol Agents15 Feb 2026
- 2026Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic Coding Assistants: A Systematic Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Skills, Tools, and Protocol Ecosystems24 Jan 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Universal Defenses for Tool-Integrated LLM Agents Against Adversarial Attacks
- 2026When the Manual Lies: A Realistic Benchmark to Evaluate MCP Poisoning Attacks for LLM Agents
- 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents
- 2025Attractive Metadata Attack: Inducing LLM Agents to Invoke Malicious Tools
- 2026ClawGuard: A Runtime Security Framework for Tool-Augmented LLM Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection
- 2026Think Twice Before You Act: Protecting LLM Agents Against Tool Description Poisoning via Isolated Planning
- 2025Parasites in the Toolchain: A Large-Scale Analysis of Attacks on the MCP Ecosystem
- 2026SafeClawBench: Separating Semantic, Audit-Evidence, and Sandbox Harm in Tool-Using LLM Agents