Tool-Use Authorization

LLM-based agents extend their capabilities through third-party skills that provide task-specific instructions, scripts, and tool-use procedures. However, malicious instructions inserted into an otherwise benign skill can cause a benign user request to trigger dangerous Tool Calls, including data exfiltration, file deletion, or unauthorized code execution. This paper presents ActionGuard, which inspects skill-influenced Tool Calls immediately before execution. ActionGuard separates the target agent's action-generation context from the safeguard's authorization context. The target agent may use the original skill for planning, but the Reviewer does not receive the potentially poisoned raw skill text. Instead, it determines whether each action is justified by the trusted user request using a balanced skill profile, current and recent Tool Calls, and local script contents. ActionGuard intercepts each Tool Call at OpenClaw's before-tool-call stage and enforces the Reviewer's ALLOW or DENY decision under a fail-closed policy. We evaluate ActionGuard on 139 contextual and 180 obvious injections in a SKILL-INJECT-based setting against Dynamic Guardian and SkillGuard, using three open-source and two commercial Reviewer models. Each condition is repeated three times and evaluated using Attack Success Rate (ASR) and Task Success Rate (TSR). Overall, ActionGuard reduced ASR by 35.54 to 46.11 percent relative to existing safeguards and by 70.44 percent relative to No Safeguard, while maintaining high benign-task completion. These results show that execution-boundary authorization grounded in trusted user intent and runtime evidence can restrict unauthorized Tool Calls induced by skill injection.

The key limitation of current state-of-the-art influence-based guardrails is that they do not reliably distinguish a legitimate, user-authorized action from a malicious, unauthorized action when both rely on external tool information. This ambiguity can cause benign actions to trigger unnecessary verification and intervention, reducing utility and adding latency. We expose this limitation through an authorization-equivalence audit of 96 conditions derived from 24 base cases. Within matched source comparisons, we hold authorization, the exact committed action, and its intended effect fixed, changing only whether a required value comes from the user or a legitimate tool result. Although the action remains unchanged, this harmless relocation shifts the causal signal toward the attack region in all 24 cases under both Llama and Gemma scorers. Matched unauthorized controls show that the signal remains attack-sensitive, yet the benign relocation produces a larger average score shift than the actual change in authorization. Architecture-level evaluation shows how this mismatch propagates through guardrail designs. With a semantic monitor, attack success is 0% and utility is 28%, compared with 16% and 60% without it. A shadow-based guardrail allows every tested harmless run, yet does not reject matched unauthorized actions more often overall: 57.5% of unauthorized runs pass automatically before reaching the later security check, compared with 29.2% of authorized runs. These results show that the studied causal signal reveals what shaped an action without reliably encoding whether the action was authorized, and that reference construction and routing are integral to the effective security decision.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has become the de-facto interface for connecting LLM agents to enterprise tools, and adoption has been explosive: within a year, large organizations went from zero to dozens of internally built MCP servers. That speed created a governance crisis. Each team implemented authentication independently -- some with no auth, some with API keys, some with full OAuth -- producing a fragmented landscape with no consistent way to authorize callers, track who did what, or offboard a departing employee across the fleet. This paper reports an industry deployment that resolves the crisis with a centralized MCP gateway: a single aggregation, governance, and authentication layer that fronts every downstream MCP server. We make four contributions grounded in production experience. First, a two-axis authentication model crossing persona (interactive user vs. automated non-user) with credential type (no-auth, static/dynamic API key, PKCE, client credentials, platform app-context). Second, a gateway authentication layer supporting three enterprise SSO grants and three token-provisioning models: Bring-Your-Own-Token, Generate-Your-Own-Token, and delegated OAuth via RFC 8693 token exchange. Third, three end-to-end identity flows -- User-to-OAuth2, Non-user-to-Service-Account, and User-to-Service-Account -- composing client, gateway, and server. Fourth, the deployment evolution from CDN/WAF/edge perimeter to private MCP tunnels and enterprise-wide connectors. The architecture is in production, fronting dozens of MCP servers across web, desktop, custom-SDK, and low-code clients.

Tool-using agents expose structured calls but commonly attach free-form rationales. Such rationales are neither authorization nor reliable introspection. We present Explanation-Bound Tool Execution (EBTE), a claim-carrying mediation layer that converts decision-relevant rationale content into typed action claims and checks them against server-held intent, policy, payload, tool, risk, provenance, and freshness facts. EBTE cannot widen baseline authority: conflicts deny, incomplete or uncertain claims review, and only matching claims remain eligible for governed execution. We formalize this composition under explicit mediation and trusted-fact assumptions and implement a versioned reference profile with minimized audit packets. Across 136 authored conformance scenarios, the full profile matches all specified dispositions, admits none of 96 designated hard contradictions, and passes 232 metamorphic checks. A draft-only reference integration forwards none of 48 authored hard cases under EBTE while preserving all 16 soft-review and 4 aligned draft paths. In a frozen 2026-07-12 exploratory 224-attempt hosted-model record, the historical generation/runner agreement counts are 71/96, 66/96, and 19/32; a zero-call revalidation of the preserved minimized claims under the current pipeline yields 70/96, 65/96, and 17/32. In an AgentDojo-derived semantic check, existing high-risk controls make all 12 attack proposals non-allow, while EBTE resolves the task--proposal contradictions as deny. Together, these studies establish profile conformance and demonstrate the feasibility of server-checked action claims within the evaluated settings.

Long-lived AI agents increasingly evolve after deployment by retaining experience, acquiring skills and tools, revising workflows, delegating work, and moving across task phases. This improves adaptation but creates a distinct authorization problem. Tool-enabled agents can turn model errors and prompt injections into consequential external actions; when evolution occurs under a live grant, the subject exercising that authority or the context in which it acts may no longer match what the user evaluated. Evolution can change both the effects reachable under an old grant and the authority required by the task, which may rise, fall, or become incomparable. Existing tool policies constrain actions but do not determine when a grant survives this change. We formulate authorization continuity: when does an existing grant remain valid, how may active authority change, and what boundary must never move? Our state-bound model fixes a transition envelope and an immutable effect ceiling at grant time. The envelope determines whether the grant survives a mutation; below the ceiling, authority may contract freely and expand only under specified evidence conditions. We distinguish requested from realized effects and prove that, under complete mediation, sound effect abstraction, attenuating delegation, and monitor integrity, mutation cannot amplify protected effects beyond the user-issued ceiling. Agent-produced evidence may allocate authority below the ceiling but cannot raise it. Finally, we map six mutation classes to their authorization consequences.

Tool-using LLM agents increasingly read untrusted content while holding side-effecting tools such as payments, email, CRM, and infrastructure APIs, yet common framework defaults still conflate tool exposure with authorization. We audit whether LangChain/LangGraph, LlamaIndex, and the Stripe Agent Toolkit re-authorize each model-emitted call, with concrete argument values, before execution. Across pinned public-source commits, all three provide capability gating by default, but none provides a deterministic fail-closed per-call value authorization gate by default. We introduce ScopeGate, a five-stage PDP/PEP for agent tool calls: scope, authorization, money ceiling, idempotency, and default deny. Evaluation shows the identical unauthorized payout call executes under LangChain's default dispatch (with a companion LlamaIndex PoC) but is denied by ScopeGate; the tested control reports 0/48 static bypasses, 0/29 unauthorized attempts (40-iteration adaptive run), 0/10 benign false-denies, and Latam-GPT payment-agent containment at 10/10. ASR denotes attempted unauthorized action, containment is not a cure, deployment-tier claims are inference over measured model classes, and no CVE is asserted.

Autonomous AI agents may begin to perform consequential, irreversible actions such as clinical prescribing and production software deployment. This paper observes that human institutions have governed powerful autonomous actors not by monitoring their reasoning but by requiring independently attested evidence at the point of consequential action. We formalise this institutional pattern as a computational governance model for AI agent systems. Under the proposed model, an agent retains full autonomy over planning and reasoning but holds no execution authority over designated high-risk actions. Execution is conditional on preconditions that are each independently attested by a separate authoritative source, cryptographically bound to a declared intent, and evaluated by a deterministic policy. Decisions are recorded in a tamper-evident log amenable to independent re-verification. We present a proof-of-concept implementation and illustrate the model with examples from software deployment and clinical prescribing.

AI agents increasingly act through external tools: they read private data, construct structured payloads, submit write requests, export records, and coordinate workflows across application boundaries. Existing authorization mechanisms usually ask whether an integration credential, app, or token can call a tool. That question is necessary but incomplete. A tool call can be authorized by static credentials and still be unjustified by the user's current request. For example, a credential that can read and export records should not expose export authority when the user only asked for a bounded summary, and a model-generated delete call should not execute merely because the integration has a delete scope. This paper proposes Intent-Governed Access Control (IGAC), a server-side authorization layer that treats the user's expressed intent as a monotone, auditable policy attribute for AI-agent tool use. IGAC introduces intent certificates, session-scoped policy narrowing, intent-aware manifest filtering, and intent-tool-payload consistency checks. The central invariant is that user intent may only reduce the authority granted by static integration policy; it never expands scopes, data policy, tenant boundaries, or review requirements. We map IGAC onto OpenPort, an existing governance substrate that already implements authorization-dependent discovery, scope and ABAC-style policy checks, draft-first writes, preflight impact binding, state-witness checks, idempotency, stable reason codes, and audit.

AI agents increasingly take consequential actions -- shell commands, cloud operations, and arbitrary tool-calls -- so a trust layer must decide, per action, whether to allow, warn, block, or escalate. We argue that the right way to reason about such a layer is by threat type. Lexical (fixed-signature) threats, where danger lives in a stable token, are decidable by deterministic rules; semantic (intent-dependent) threats, where a benign and a malicious action share the same surface, are out of reach for rules by construction. We make this concrete with a negative proof: a determined, hand-authored cloud rule pack lifts held-out accuracy only 48 to 56% overall and moves the semantic categories by 0pp (data_db 29 to 29, observability 59 to 59, supply_chain 50 to 50), while a strong LLM judge carries exactly those categories. We give the judge a self-learning capability: on a corpus that is mainly semantic attacks it nearly doubles rule accuracy (48% to 83.6-85.2%) with near-zero false-blocks, and this holds across two model providers. We turn this into a self-improving dual-store system: the judge distills a growing deterministic rule floor on lexical threats (cheaper over time) and feeds a guarded RAG memory on semantic threats (a verdict-cache fails -- surface-twins collapse to ~58% -- so a corroboration guard lifts semantic accuracy +13pp, 70 to 84). The result is what sets AgentTrust v2 apart from its static v1 predecessor: a trust layer that self-evolves from its own stream of decisions -- cheaper on the lexical class (it distils its own rules) and smarter on the semantic class (it accrues guarded precedent), while never hard-blocking a benign action. An end-to-end online replay shows the judge-call rate falling (50% to 44%) and judge-domain accuracy rising (71% to 80%), with 0 benign hard-blocks across 45,000 actions.

Autonomous AI agents increasingly issue side-effect-bearing actions: database mutations, refunds, payments, external commitments. We propose the Actuarial Action Interface (AAI), a deterministic runtime contract that prices each such action against a contractually fixed safe default under a time-consistent risk mapping, and gates execution against a per-boundary reserve capital budget. We then develop the Authority Frontier, an evaluation primitive measuring how much autonomous authority the runtime releases at each level of reserve capital. The framework provides (i) a deterministic quote-bind-commit protocol with toll-bounded capability tokens; (ii) a universal seven-class action taxonomy mapping heterogeneous tool calls to comparable authority units; (iii) replay determinism and pathwise reserve coverage under alpha-spending; (iv) cross-domain normalization via full reserve demand C_full and capital metrics Capital@k. We instantiate AAI across four agentic environments (database mutation, customer-service refund, and the public tau-bench retail and airline tool-use traces) and report a live Postgres panel in which three Azure-hosted models propose actions through the same contract. The frontier exhibits a common low-reserve refusal and intermediate-release pattern across domains, with saturation only where the budget grid reaches full reserve demand; required reserve capital varies by 22x (Capital@50 from 289 to 6457). The framework does not force domains into the same shape; it surfaces each domain's actuarial geometry. In the live panel the contract prevents realized loss across all three models at low budget while differing in underwriting persistence under denial: model identity is an actuarial underwriting variable. The contribution is a benchmark-ready evaluation framework for runtime actuarial control of autonomous-agent side effects.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) standardizes how a large-language-model (LLM) agent and an external tool server exchange messages, but not trust: a host reads a server's self-declared tool list and dispatches calls, with no notion of which servers it may use, at what sensitivity, or which of a server's tools are in bounds. This work grew out of a concrete need -- letting the Enclawed agent use Google's externally-operated MCP servers (Gmail, Calendar, Drive) safely, admitting the server and bounding the tools it may drive, without changing MCP or Enclawed's own tool application-programming interface (API). The mechanism we built, mcp-attested (shipped in both the open enclawed-oss distribution and the enclaved flavor), generalizes: the gap that makes an unmediated third-party connection unsafe for one user makes a regulated deployment impossible to accredit. We close it with three additive mechanisms: (1) a small, offline-signed clearance assertion a server publishes at a well-known Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) and a host verifies against a pinned trust root before any tool dispatch; (2) a deny-by-default per-server tool allowlist, so admitting a server is not trusting its every tool; and (3) a flavor-gated enforcement mode that turns the checks from warnings into hard denials, with every decision written to a tamper-evident audit log. We give the wire format, the verification algorithm, a security analysis, and an LLM-driven adversarial evaluation; we then state the design in normative Request-for-Comments (RFC 2119) form -- schema, verification rules, error registry, well-known registration, and machine-checkable conformance vectors -- so it can be adopted as an MCP addendum rather than reinvented. An unextended host ignores the well-known document and behaves exactly as today.

Multimodal agents increasingly choose tool calls from screenshots, documents, and webpages, where a false perceptual claim can turn hallucination from an answer-quality error into an authorization failure. We formalize this failure mode as hallucination-to-action conversion: an unsupported claim supplies the precondition for a privileged action. We propose evidence-carrying multimodal agents (ECA), which treat free-form model text as inadmissible evidence, decompose each tool call into action-critical predicates, obtain typed certificates from constrained DOM/OCR/AX verifiers, and use a deterministic gate to authorize only the privileges those certificates support. Rather than hiding perception error, ECA converts opaque model belief into auditable residuals at the verifier, schema, and implementation levels. Verifier red-teaming across 17 canonical attack categories shows that four targeted hardening steps are each necessary; after hardening, canonical gate bypass is 0/1,700 (Wilson 95% upper bound 0.22%). With content-derived certificates, ECA observes zero unsafe executions on 200 end-to-end tasks (Wilson 95% upper bound 2.67%) and 120 browser tasks (upper bound 4.3%). A HACR audit on 500 stratified task keys shows that unsupported action-critical claims reach unsafe execution for naive agents (100.0%) and prompt-only defenses (49.6%), but not for ECA. Oracle-certificate replay over 7,488 GPT-5.4 traces isolates gate correctness, while neural judge baselines still admit most unsafe actions under the same threat model. The resulting principle is simple: model language may propose tool use, but certified predicates must authorize it.

Enterprise AI is shifting from copilots to autonomous agents capable of executing workflows, negotiating outcomes, and making decisions with limited human oversight. As these systems extend across organizational boundaries, identity alone is insufficient: an agent's authority must also be explicit, constrained, auditable, revocable, and consistently interpretable by independent receivers. This paper analyzes representative enterprise use cases in insurance claims processing and supply chain integrity to surface structural gaps in existing identity and access models. It proposes a portable authorization model for autonomous agents based on issuer-authored authorization payloads, typed constraint algebra, decision-consistent evaluation semantics, delegation attenuation, governed semantic resolution, fail-closed processing, and pre-flight discovery. The model separates credential containers, authorization payload semantics, and enforcement engines, allowing profiles such as JWT/JWS, Verifiable Credentials, OAuth Rich Authorization Requests, or policy-engine bindings to preserve a common authorization meaning across trust boundaries.

As Model Context Protocol adoption grows, securing tool invocations via meaningful user consent has become a critical challenge, as existing methods, broad always allow toggles or opaque LLM-based decisions, fail to account for dangerous call arguments and often lead to consent fatigue. In this work, we present Conleash, a client-side middleware that enforces boundary-scoped authorization by utilizing a risk lattice to auto-permit safe calls within known boundaries while escalating risks, a policy engine for user-defined invariants, and a refinement loop that converts user decisions into reusable rules. Evaluated on 984 real-world traces, Conleash achieved 98.2% accuracy, caught 99.4% of escalations, and added only 8.2 ms of overhead for policy verification; furthermore, in a user study where N=16, participants significantly preferred Conleash scoped permissions over traditional methods, citing higher trust and reduced prompting.

Agentic systems increasingly act with user secrets for APIs, messaging platforms, and cloud services. Today's agent runtimes typically implement authorization by exposure: enabling action often means placing a reusable secret, or a reusable artifact derived from it, inside the runtime, so a transient prompt-injection or tool-side compromise becomes durable account compromise. Existing defenses cover adjacent pieces such as secret storage, scoped delegation, sender-constrained tokens, and runtime monitoring, but leave the combined agentic obligation without a common specification: an untrusted autonomous requester should be able to cause a user-authorized secret-backed operation without gaining reusable authority over it. We formalize this as the Agent Secret Use (ASU) problem and identify seven security properties any solution must satisfy, spanning authorization integrity and secret confidentiality. We propose the Secret-Use Delegation Protocol (SUDP), in which a requester proposes a canonical operation, the user authorizes it with a fresh authenticator-backed grant, and a custodian redeems the grant to perform the bounded use; reusable authority never crosses the requester boundary. We specialize SUDP for LLM-driven agents, where it applies whenever a tool call would exercise user-enrolled authority-bearing material. Under standard cryptographic assumptions, SUDP satisfies all seven properties when integrated with a hardware-rooted runtime. A reference implementation is available at https://github.com/xhyumiracle/sudp.

Current AI systems increasingly operate in contexts where their outputs directly trigger real-world actions. Most existing approaches to AI safety, risk management, and governance focus on post-hoc validation, probabilistic risk estimation, or certification of model behavior. However, these approaches implicitly assume that once a decision is produced, it is eligible for execution. In this work, we introduce the Right-to-Act protocol, a deterministic, non-compensatory pre-execution decision layer that evaluates whether an AI-generated decision is permitted to be realized at all. Unlike compensatory systems, where high-confidence signals can override failed conditions, the proposed framework enforces strict structural constraints: if any required condition is unmet, execution is halted or deferred. We formalize the distinction between compensatory and non-compensatory decision regimes and define a pre-execution legitimacy boundary. Through a scenario-based case study, we demonstrate how identical AI outputs can lead to divergent outcomes when evaluated under a Right-to-Act protocol, preserving reversibility and preventing premature or irreversible actions. The proposed approach reframes AI control from optimizing decisions to governing their admissibility, introducing a protocol-level abstraction that operates independently of model architecture or training methodology.