mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Mandato: Protocol-Level Enforcement of Digitally Signed Mandates on AI Agent Actions with Cryptographically Chained Audit Trails

arXiv 2608.14074 ↗First posted 14 Aug 2026cs.AIcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents increasingly act on external systems through standardized tool-calling protocols such as the Model Context Protocol (MCP), yet no infrastructure layer constrains their actions to what a principal has verifiably authorized: authorization logic lives in application code, is neither signed nor independently auditable, and the resulting logs lack evidentiary value. We present Mandato, a governance proxy that enforces digitally signed mandates on agent actions at the protocol level. A mandate is a machine-readable, cryptographically signed authorization artifact specifying which tools an agent may invoke, under which parameter constraints and contextual conditions, for how long, and on whose behalf; the proxy evaluates every tool call against the applicable mandate chain, blocks non-conforming calls in line, and records every decision -- permit, deny, and the evidence for each -- in an append-only, hash-chained audit log designed for evidentiary use and periodically anchored via qualified timestamps. The mandate is deliberately modeled on the civil-law institution of delegation of authority, making the artifact legible to lawyers and auditors, not only to engineers. We give the mandate model and its decision semantics, the reference architecture as an MCP-transparent proxy with separated decision and enforcement points, and a mapping of the mechanism onto EU AI Act Articles 12 and 14, GDPR accountability, NIS2, and eIDAS 2, including a roadmap to qualified attestation through Qualified Trust Service Providers (QTSPs). We describe the implementation status of the reference system and a quantitative evaluation plan covering enforcement overhead, audit completeness, and tamper-evidence verification cost.

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 1 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2026.

Builds on

1 of 20 references.

References · 1

  1. 2024Visibility into AI Agentscited by 79

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. 2026Behavioral Governance for Autonomous AI Agents: The AgentBound Framework
  2. 2026Authorization Architectures for Tool-Using AI Agents
  3. 2025AudAgent: Automated Auditing of Privacy Policy Compliance in AI Agents
  4. 2026Before the Tool Call: Deterministic Pre-Action Authorization for Autonomous AI Agents
  5. 2026Governed MCP: Kernel-Level Tool Governance for AI Agents via Logit-Based Safety Primitives
  6. 2026Runtime Governance for AI Agents: Policies on Paths
  7. 2026HDP: A Lightweight Cryptographic Protocol for Human Delegation Provenance in Agentic AI Systems
  8. 2026From Runtime Records to Legal Findings: An Evidentiary-Adequacy Criterion for Agentic AI Oversight