Attested Tool-Server Admission: A Security Extension to the Model Context Protocol
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) standardizes how a large-language-model (LLM) agent and an external tool server exchange messages, but not trust: a host reads a server's self-declared tool list and dispatches calls, with no notion of which servers it may use, at what sensitivity, or which of a server's tools are in bounds. This work grew out of a concrete need -- letting the Enclawed agent use Google's externally-operated MCP servers (Gmail, Calendar, Drive) safely, admitting the server and bounding the tools it may drive, without changing MCP or Enclawed's own tool application-programming interface (API). The mechanism we built, mcp-attested (shipped in both the open enclawed-oss distribution and the enclaved flavor), generalizes: the gap that makes an unmediated third-party connection unsafe for one user makes a regulated deployment impossible to accredit. We close it with three additive mechanisms: (1) a small, offline-signed clearance assertion a server publishes at a well-known Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) and a host verifies against a pinned trust root before any tool dispatch; (2) a deny-by-default per-server tool allowlist, so admitting a server is not trusting its every tool; and (3) a flavor-gated enforcement mode that turns the checks from warnings into hard denials, with every decision written to a tamper-evident audit log. We give the wire format, the verification algorithm, a security analysis, and an LLM-driven adversarial evaluation; we then state the design in normative Request-for-Comments (RFC 2119) form -- schema, verification rules, error registry, well-known registration, and machine-checkable conformance vectors -- so it can be adopted as an MCP addendum rather than reinvented. An unextended host ignores the well-known document and behaves exactly as today.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 3 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2026.
Builds on
3 of 26 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents
- 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents
- 2025A First Look at the Security Issues in the Model Context Protocol Ecosystem
- 2026From Tool Connection to Execution Control: Benchmarking Security Invariants in MCP-Style Agent Runtimes
- 2026TrustShiftProbe: Characterizing, Benchmarking, and Defending Staged Trust Attacks on MCP Servers
- 2026MCP-DPT: A Defense-Placement Taxonomy and Coverage Analysis for Model Context Protocol Security
- 2025Beyond the Protocol: Unveiling Attack Vectors in the Model Context Protocol (MCP) Ecosystem
- 2026Give Them an Inch and They Will Take a Mile:Understanding and Measuring Caller Identity Confusion in MCP-Based AI Systems