Give Them an Inch and They Will Take a Mile:Understanding and Measuring Caller Identity Confusion in MCP-Based AI Systems
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is an open and standardized interface that enables large language models (LLMs) to interact with external tools and services, and is increasingly adopted by AI agents. However, the security of MCP-based systems remains largely unexplored.In this work, we conduct a large-scale security analysis of MCP servers integrated within MCP clients. We show that treating MCP servers as trusted entities without authenticating the caller identity is fundamentally insecure. Since MCP servers often cannot distinguish who is invoking a request, a single authorization decision may implicitly grant access to multiple, potentially untrusted callers.Our empirical study reveals that most MCP servers rely on persistent authorization states, allowing tool invocations after an initial authorization without re-authentication, regardless of the caller. In addition, many MCP servers fail to enforce authentication at the per-tool level, enabling unauthorized access to sensitive operations.These findings demonstrate that one-time authorization and server-level trust significantly expand the attack surface of MCP-based systems, highlighting the need for explicit caller authentication and fine-grained authorization mechanisms.
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 10 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Mar 2026.
Builds on
10 of 34 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025MCPGuard : Automatically Detecting Vulnerabilities in MCP Servers27 Oct
- 2025MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocols17 Aug
- 2025A Survey of LLM-Driven AI Agent Communication: Protocols, Security Risks, and Defense Countermeasures24 Jun
Other references · 7
- 2025MCP-Zero: Active Tool Discovery for Autonomous LLM Agentscited by 32
- 2025Securing the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Risks, Controls, and Governancecited by 22
- 2025When MCP Servers Attack: Taxonomy, Feasibility, and Mitigationcited by 17
- 2025Survey of LLM Agent Communication with MCP: A Software Design Pattern Centric Reviewcited by 14
- 2024A Survey on Decentralized Identifiers and Verifiable Credentialscited by 10
- 2019Internet of Things Security, Device Authentication and Access Control: A Reviewcited by 3
- 2020OAuth 2.0 authorization using blockchain-based tokenscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025MCP Guardian: A Security-First Layer for Safeguarding MCP-Based AI System
- 2026A Formal Security Framework for MCP-Based AI Agents: Threat Taxonomy, Verification Models, and Defense Mechanisms
- 2026Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents
- 2026Zero-Trust Authorization and Discovery for Enterprise MCP
- 2026Compatibility at a Cost: Systematic Discovery and Exploitation of MCP Clause-Compliance Vulnerabilities
- 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directions
- 2026MCP-DPT: A Defense-Placement Taxonomy and Coverage Analysis for Model Context Protocol Security
- 2026Don't believe everything you read: Understanding and Measuring MCP Behavior under Misleading Tool Descriptions