Verifiable Manifest Signing and Transparency Enforcement for Secure MCP-Based LLM Pipelines
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in tool-driven environments such as healthcare analytics, financial systems, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and multi-agent workflows. Although the Model Context Protocol (MCP) standardizes how LLM applications expose and invoke external tools, its baseline model does not require tool-use manifests to be cryptographically authenticated, freshness-checked, policy-bound, or independently auditable before execution. As a result, MCP pipelines may remain vulnerable to manifest tampering, unauthorized tool invocation, replay of stale requests, and weak accountability. This paper presents a manifest-level enforcement layer for MCP-based LLM pipelines. It treats each MCP tool-use manifest as a first-class security object whose canonical form must be policy-validated, freshness-checked, digitally signed, verified before execution, and linked to tamper-evident audit evidence. The framework binds tool invocation to verifiable manifest integrity and fail-closed authorization, separates user-visible request parameters from execution metadata, rejects non-compliant or stale manifests before execution, and records accepted invocations in a Merkle-based transparency log. Evaluation across GPT-5.3, LLaMA-3.5, and DeepSeek-V3 using up to 50,000 manifest instances shows near-linear scalability (R^2 = 0.998), bounded verification latency (<= 9.4 ms on edge devices), and rejection of expired, malformed, replayed, and policy-violating manifests, with rejection rates above 98.7%. Experiments in healthcare, finance, RAG, and multi-agent settings show that manifest-level cryptographic enforcement enables low-overhead, traceable, and auditable execution control for heterogeneous LLM-tool pipelines.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2026.
Builds on
9 of 42 references.
References · 9
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
- 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directionscited by 257
- 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systemscited by 118
- 2025Securing the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Risks, Controls, and Governancecited by 22
- 2024Laminator: Verifiable ML Property Cards using Hardware-assisted Attestationscited by 9
- 2025Choosing to Be Green: Advancing Green AI via Dynamic Model Selectioncited by 2
- 2019Scanclave: Verifying Application Runtime Integrity in Untrusted Environmentscited by 1
- 2022TAP: Transparent and Privacy-Preserving Data Servicescited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025A First Look at the Security Issues in the Model Context Protocol Ecosystem
- 2025MCP Safety Audit: LLMs with the Model Context Protocol Allow Major Security Exploits
- 2026Hybrid Analysis for Secure MCP Tool Use in LLM Agents
- 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents
- 2026MCP-SandboxScan: WASM-based Secure Execution and Runtime Analysis for MCP Tools
- 2026ACLE-MCP: Attested Capability Leases for Execution-Time Trust in Remote LLM Tool Use
- 2025ETDI: Mitigating Tool Squatting and Rug Pull Attacks in Model Context Protocol (MCP) by using OAuth-Enhanced Tool Definitions and Policy-Based Access Control
- 2026Auditing MCP Servers for Over-Privileged Tool Capabilities