mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

IntentMiner: Intent Inversion Attack via Tool Call Analysis in the Model Context Protocol

arXiv 2512.14166 ↗First posted 16 Dec 2025cs.CR cs.AIcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) into Agentic AI has established the Model Context Protocol (MCP) as the standard for connecting reasoning engines with external tools. Although this decoupled architecture fosters modularity, it simultaneously shatters the traditional trust boundary. We uncover a novel privacy vector inherent to this paradigm: the Intent Inversion Attack. We show that semi-honest third-party MCP servers can accurately reconstruct users' underlying intents by leveraging only authorized metadata (e.g., function signatures, arguments, and receipts), effectively bypassing the need for raw query access. To quantify this threat, we introduce IntentMiner. Unlike statistical approaches, IntentMiner employs a hierarchical semantic parsing strategy that performs step-level intent reconstruction by analyzing tool functions, parameter entities, and result feedback in an orthogonal manner. Experiments on the ToolACE benchmark reveal that IntentMiner achieves a semantic alignment of over 85% with original queries, substantially surpassing LLM baselines. This work exposes a critical endogenous vulnerability: without semantic obfuscation, executing functions requires the transparency of intent, thereby challenging the privacy foundations of next-generation AI agents.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 11 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Dec 2025.

Builds on

11 of 23 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025MCPTox: A Benchmark for Tool Poisoning Attack on Real-World MCP Servers19 Aug
  2. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar

Other references · 9

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,221
  3. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
  4. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  5. 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,227
  6. 2020MPNet: Masked and Permuted Pre-training for Language Understandingcited by 973
  7. 2016Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIscited by 602
  8. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 568
  9. 2023Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Textcited by 189

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Exploring the Vulnerability of the Content Moderation Guardrail in Large Language Models via Intent Manipulation
  2. 2025Mitigating Indirect Prompt Injection via Instruction-Following Intent Analysis
  3. 2026Privacy-Preserving RAG via Multi-Agent Semantic Rewriting: Achieving Confidentiality Without Compromising Contextual Fidelity
  4. 2026NeuroFilter: Activation-Based Guardrails for Privacy-Conscious LLM Agents
  5. 2026The Claws in Plain Sight: Unauthorized Context Disclosure through LLM Agent Tool Calls
  6. 2026LLMs as Linguistic Chameleons: Decoupling Semantics and Structure for Privacy-Preserving Communication
  7. 2025LeechHijack: Covert Computational Resource Exploitation in Intelligent Agent Systems
  8. 2026ADAM: A Systematic Data Extraction Attack on Agent Memory via Adaptive Querying