mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Attested Tool-Server Admission: A Security Extension to the Model Context Protocol

arXiv 2605.24248 ↗First posted 22 May 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.SEcited by 1

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

  1. 2026An Application-Layer Multi-Modal Covert-Channel Reference Monitor for LLM Agent Egress20 May

Other references · 2

  1. 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
  2. 2026Methods for Formal Verification of Agent Skills: Three Layers Toward a Mechanically Checkable Capability-Containment Proofcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents
  2. 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents
  3. 2025A First Look at the Security Issues in the Model Context Protocol Ecosystem
  4. 2026From Tool Connection to Execution Control: Benchmarking Security Invariants in MCP-Style Agent Runtimes
  5. 2026TrustShiftProbe: Characterizing, Benchmarking, and Defending Staged Trust Attacks on MCP Servers
  6. 2026MCP-DPT: A Defense-Placement Taxonomy and Coverage Analysis for Model Context Protocol Security
  7. 2025Beyond the Protocol: Unveiling Attack Vectors in the Model Context Protocol (MCP) Ecosystem
  8. 2026Give Them an Inch and They Will Take a Mile:Understanding and Measuring Caller Identity Confusion in MCP-Based AI Systems