From Tool Connection to Execution Control: Benchmarking Security Invariants in MCP-Style Agent Runtimes
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Model Context Protocol (MCP)-style ecosystems give language-model applications a practical connection layer for tools, resources, prompts, and transports. As agents move from connection to execution, security decisions often remain split across clients, servers, prompts, approval dialogs, OAuth deployments, and logs. This paper asks whether a runtime can make execution-layer invariants explicit and testable while preserving MCP-like workflows. We define eight invariants: metadata non-authority, grant-backed approval, canonical resources, principal binding, scoped capability invocation, source-and-target data-flow authorization, deny-path audit, and explicit protocol state. We implement these invariants in HCP, a Handle-Capability Protocol reference runtime for MCP-style agent execution that represents calls through principals, resources, grants, capabilities, handles, policy decisions, data-pipe checks, and audit entries. We evaluate HCP against two MCP-like baselines: a naive connection-layer runtime and a practice-informed connection-layer mitigation baseline with metadata linting, session checks, and per-call approvals. Across 10 benchmark cases, the naive baseline permits all modeled attacks, the mitigation baseline permits 6 of 10, and HCP blocks all 10 while preserving audit evidence. Ablations identify which runtime components block attacks and preserve forensic evidence. A local in-memory microbenchmark reports sub-millisecond mean latencies for measured policy, invocation, peek, and pipe operations. A bounded GitHub README-screening sample provides ecosystem signals, not vulnerability findings. The results support a narrow claim: MCP-style agent systems need an execution-control layer in addition to connection-layer conventions.
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 2 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2026.
Builds on
2 of 15 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar
Other references · 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Rethinking MCP Security: A Large-Scale Study of Runtime MCP Servers and Security Scanner Reliability
- 2026From Tool Orchestration to Code Execution: A Study of MCP Design Choices
- 2025MCPGuard : Automatically Detecting Vulnerabilities in MCP Servers
- 2026Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents
- 2026Attested Tool-Server Admission: A Security Extension to the Model Context Protocol
- 2025Securing the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Risks, Controls, and Governance
- 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents
- 2026A Formal Security Framework for MCP-Based AI Agents: Threat Taxonomy, Verification Models, and Defense Mechanisms