mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

MCP-SandboxScan: WASM-based Secure Execution and Runtime Analysis for MCP Tools

arXiv 2601.01241 ↗First posted 3 Jan 2026cs.CR cs.SEcited by 3

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-augmented Large Language Model (LLM) agents create a new supply-chain surface: Model Context Protocol (MCP) tools are installed like third-party packages, yet their outputs can enter the agent's reasoning context. This enables confused-deputy risks in which attacker-controlled inputs cause otherwise benign tools to exercise legitimate authority over files, environment variables, or network-facing operations and reflect sensitive or instruction-like content into LLM-visible fields. We present SandScope, an MCP-aware audit framework that combines runtime witness detection with semantic tool profiling. SandScope executes portable tools under WebAssembly System Interface (WASI) or drives unmodified MCP servers over standard input/output (stdio), extracts LLM-visible sinks from tool results and prompt/message fields, and reports auditable source-to-sink witnesses from environment, file, and tool-input sources while separately recording network-intent and egress evidence. Its semantic layer recovers declared capabilities from tools/list metadata and static registrations to characterize attack surface when execution is incomplete. We evaluate SandScope on controlled cross-language subjects, an evasion benchmark, and a 100-repository MCP corpus. SandScope completes shallow dynamic scans for 35 repositories and, through a broader semantic profiling pass, recovers metadata for 1,127 tools across 71 repositories, including 886 tools with security-sensitive declared capabilities. A schema-guided exploration pass over the 35 dynamically scanned repositories re-executes 33 and observes source-to-sink witnesses in 12. These results show that SandScope provides practical, auditable evidence for MCP tool risk through controlled execution, MCP-aware sink extraction, runtime witness reporting, and semantic capability profiling.

Key facts. Cited by 3 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. First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026VIPER-MCP: Detecting and Exploiting Taint-Style Vulnerabilities in Model Context Protocol Servers
  2. 2026FlowGuard: From Signals to Evidence for MCP Security Detection
  3. 2026Auditing MCP Servers for Over-Privileged Tool Capabilities
  4. 2026Unsafe by Flow: Uncovering Bidirectional Data-Flow Risks in MCP Ecosystem
  5. 2025MCPGuard : Automatically Detecting Vulnerabilities in MCP Servers
  6. 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents
  7. 2026MCP Pitfall Lab: Exposing Developer Pitfalls in MCP Tool Server Security under Multi-Vector Attacks
  8. 2026Mitigating Taint-Style Vulnerabilities in MCP Servers via Security-Aware Tool Descriptions