# Blue Teaming Function-Calling Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09292 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.09292/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 4 of its 8 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02644/) (2024)
- [DRIFT: Dynamic Rule-Based Defense with Injection Isolation for Securing LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12104/) (2025)
- [From Allies to Adversaries: Manipulating LLM Tool-Calling through Adversarial Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.10198/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We present an experimental evaluation that assesses the robustness of four open source LLMs claiming function-calling capabilities against three different attacks, and we measure the effectiveness of eight different defences. Our results show how these models are not safe by default, and how the defences are not yet employable in real-world scenarios.