When Neither Side Confirms: Destructive Tool Approval Across MCP Servers and Hosts

LLM agents call tools that delete data or move money through the Model Context Protocol (MCP). The specification asks for a human who can deny tool calls but splits the mechanism between the server, which can annotate a tool or ask the user through the host (elicitation), and the host application, which decides whether to prompt. We measure both sides from source code. In a 1,000-repository sample of the official MCP registry, an estimated 90% of destructive tools (95% CI 82-95) have no server-side confirmation, and most servers that elicit proceed, or fall back to a flag the model can set, when the host cannot relay the question. Of 41 popular open-source hosts and agent SDKs, 32 have no approval step by default, including 16 of 25 applications. Pairing sampled destructive tools flagged by a rule-based extractor with these applications, 60.7% of pairs have no enforced human approval by default. Through four agent SDKs, four of five low-cost models executed an injected deletion in 479 of 960 runs. If hosts prompted for every tool not annotated read-only or non-destructive, the unapproved share of these pairs would fall to 5.4%; universal elicitation support would leave 56.7%. Applications should therefore configure approval.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
arXiv (Cornell University)
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2611.02527
Primary Topic
Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

When Neither Side Confirms: Destructive Tool Approval Across MCP Servers and Hosts

Yongxi Zhou, Junwei Yao, Wenbo Ye, Zike Yang et al.
arXiv (Cornell University)
Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
preprint

When Neither Side Confirms: Destructive Tool Approval Across MCP Servers and Hosts

Yongxi Zhou, Junwei Yao, Wenbo Ye, Zike Yang, Zhijun Wang
preprint en

Abstract

LLM agents call tools that delete data or move money through the Model Context Protocol (MCP). The specification asks for a human who can deny tool calls but splits the mechanism between the server, which can annotate a tool or ask the user through the host (elicitation), and the host application, which decides whether to prompt. We measure both sides from source code. In a 1,000-repository sample of the official MCP registry, an estimated 90% of destructive tools (95% CI 82-95) have no server-side confirmation, and most servers that elicit proceed, or fall back to a flag the model can set, when the host cannot relay the question. Of 41 popular open-source hosts and agent SDKs, 32 have no approval step by default, including 16 of 25 applications. Pairing sampled destructive tools flagged by a rule-based extractor with these applications, 60.7% of pairs have no enforced human approval by default. Through four agent SDKs, four of five low-cost models executed an injected deletion in 479 of 960 runs. If hosts prompted for every tool not annotated read-only or non-destructive, the unapproved share of these pairs would fall to 5.4%; universal elicitation support would leave 56.7%. Applications should therefore configure approval.

arXiv (Cornell University)
Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
When Neither Side Confirms: Destructive Tool Approval Across MCP Servers and Hosts — Yongxi Zhou, Junwei Yao, et al. · arXiv (Cornell University) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS