mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Zero-Trust Authorization and Discovery for Enterprise MCP

arXiv 2609.22573 ↗First posted 18 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents translate natural-language context, which may include attacker-controlled text, into privileged tool calls, so authorization must remain effective even when an agent is prompt-injected or adversarially steered. The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has become a widely adopted interface for this boundary, yet its official SDKs' authentication and authorization primitives fall short of enterprise zero-trust requirements, most acutely a dual-persona model in which one server must serve human users (corporate SSO) and automated agents (service-account credentials on a different header). We conduct a systematic gap analysis of six surveyed MCP SDKs (Python, TypeScript, Go, Rust, C#, Swift) and identify three structural shortcomings: credential extraction bound to a single Authorization header, complicating dual-persona deployment without custom middleware; the absence of pre-authentication tool discovery; and the lack of fine-grained per-tool authorization in the base SDKs. We close these gaps with composable extensions to FastMCP: cross-header credential normalization for enterprise deployments serving both human and service-account callers, cached token verification across heterogeneous IdPs, an unauthenticated metadata endpoint for credential-free registry discovery, and permission-filtered tool visibility kept consistent with per-tool invocation enforcement by a single declarative annotation, all without modifying the protocol or SDK internals. Across four frontier LLMs over 2160 attempts, an in-body-check-only server still exposes forbidden tools (152/720, 21.1%), whereas permission-aware visibility drives the rate to 0/720; visibility-only filtering remained bypassable by scripted clients, while models referenced the hidden tool by name in up to 94% of settings when inferable from the prompt, confirming that discovery controls cannot replace invocation-time enforcement.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 2026.

Builds on

8 of 37 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025A First Look at the Security Issues in the Model Context Protocol Ecosystem18 Oct
  2. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 6

  1. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  2. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
  3. 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 325
  4. 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 233
  5. 2025Securing the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Risks, Controls, and Governancecited by 22
  6. 2026A Gateway Architecture for Enterprise MCP Authentication: Unifying Heterogeneous Auth, Identity Delegation, and the User / Non-User Persona Problemcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Give Them an Inch and They Will Take a Mile:Understanding and Measuring Caller Identity Confusion in MCP-Based AI Systems
  2. 2026A First Measurement Study on Authentication Security in Real-World Remote MCP Servers
  3. 2026Attested Tool-Server Admission: A Security Extension to the Model Context Protocol
  4. 2026ACLE-MCP: Attested Capability Leases for Execution-Time Trust in Remote LLM Tool Use
  5. 2026Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents
  6. 2026From Tool Connection to Execution Control: Benchmarking Security Invariants in MCP-Style Agent Runtimes
  7. 2025MCPGuard : Automatically Detecting Vulnerabilities in MCP Servers
  8. 2025We Urgently Need Privilege Management in MCP: A Measurement of API Usage in MCP Ecosystems