# When Agents Act on Web3: An Attack-Surface Survey of MCP, Skills, and Tool Calling

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17275 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.17275/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 20 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15334/) (2023)
- [Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23278/) (2025)
- [MCPTox: A Benchmark for Tool Poisoning Attack on Real-World MCP Servers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.14925/) (2025)
- [MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocols](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.13220/) (2025)
- [Enterprise-Grade Security for the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Frameworks and Mitigation Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08623/) (2025)
- [MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.15994/) (2025)
- [MPMA: Preference Manipulation Attack Against Model Context Protocol](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11154/) (2025)
- [MCP-SafetyBench: A Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models with Real-World MCP Servers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.15163/) (2025)
- [MCP Guardian: A Security-First Layer for Safeguarding MCP-Based AI System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12757/) (2025)
- [ETDI: Mitigating Tool Squatting and Rug Pull Attacks in Model Context Protocol (MCP) by using OAuth-Enhanced Tool Definitions and Policy-Based Access Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01333/) (2025)
- [MCP-Guard: A Multi-Stage Defense-in-Depth Framework for Securing Model Context Protocol in Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10991/) (2025)
- [Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17549/) (2026)
- [Systematization of Knowledge: Security and Safety in the Model Context Protocol Ecosystem](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.08290/) (2025)
- [Autonomous Agents on Blockchains: Standards, Execution Models, and Trust Boundaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04583/) (2026)
- [Your Agent Is Mine: Measuring Malicious Intermediary Attacks on the LLM Supply Chain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.08407/) (2026)
- [Attestation Mechanisms for Trusted Execution Environments Demystified](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.03780/) (2022)
- [How are AI agents used? Evidence from 177,000 MCP tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.23802/) (2026)
- [Remote Credential Management with Mutual Attestation for Trusted Execution Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.10707/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents increasingly act rather than merely read: across the Model Context Protocol (MCP) ecosystem, the share of deployed tools that modify external state has risen from 27% to 65% of tool use. When agents exercise this authority on public blockchains through MCP, skills, and tool calling, the consequences of an attack are governed by the blockchain execution layer rather than by conventional software assumptions. This survey argues that four properties of that layer (irreversibility, signing authority, continuous autonomy, and sequence-level composition) qualitatively change the threat model, turning the recoverable failures of generic agent security into a standing, irreversible loss. We organize the fragmented MCP-security literature into an attack-surface taxonomy, then contribute a Web3 risk-mapping matrix that ties each attack class to its amplified impact, the responsible amplifiers, a representative mitigation, and the residual gap. We synthesize defenses, including emerging blockchain-based mechanisms, and find them improving but insufficient: measured protections stop fewer than 30% of attacks, and model-level safety refuses fewer than 3%. We close by positioning the work against adjacent surveys and deriving a research agenda from the matrix's open cells.