Papers › Attractive Metadata Attack: Inducing LLM Agents to Invoke Malicious Tools
Attractive Metadata Attack: Inducing LLM Agents to Invoke Malicious Tools
Kanghua Mo, Li Hu, Yucheng Long, Zhihao Li
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex reasoning and decision-making by leveraging external tools. However, this tool-centric paradigm introduces a previously underexplored attack surface, where adversaries can manipulate tool metadata -- such as names, descriptions, and parameter schemas -- to influence agent behavior. We identify this as a new and stealthy threat surface that allows malicious tools to be preferentially selected by LLM agents, without requiring prompt injection or access to model internals. To demonstrate and exploit this vulnerability, we propose the Attractive Metadata Attack (AMA), a black-box in-context learning framework that generates highly attractive but syntactically and semantically valid tool metadata through iterative optimization. The proposed attack integrates seamlessly into standard tool ecosystems and requires no modification to the agent's execution framework. Extensive experiments across ten realistic, simulated tool-use scenarios and a range of popular LLM agents demonstrate consistently high attack success rates (81%-95%) and significant privacy leakage, with negligible impact on primary task execution. Moreover, the attack remains effective even against prompt-level defenses, auditor-based detection, and structured tool-selection protocols such as the Model Context Protocol, revealing systemic vulnerabilities in current agent architectures. These findings reveal that metadata manipulation constitutes a potent and stealthy attack surface. Notably, AMA is orthogonal to injection attacks and can be combined with them to achieve stronger attack efficacy, highlighting the need for execution-level defenses beyond prompt-level and auditor-based mechanisms. Code is available at https://github.com/SEAIC-M/AMA.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2508.02110")
Code
Syntology Ran 4 of 5 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 4 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 5 samples from 1 repository, 4 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
5 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 5 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from SEAIC-M/AMA. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
cada939d80cc1284 · report
89022d247c213dec · report
cc60147ddda0a3d8 · report
12da1b173630d6d1 · report
4f6baca6d9aa4f6c · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2508.02110, was issued in August 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections