Threat explainer

MCP security

Tool poisoning, overbroad permissions, and shadow MCP servers.

  1. MCP lets agents use tools. Bad tools can lie or overreach.

  2. MCP risk clusters around tool description poisoning, token exposure, command injection, and audit gaps.

  3. HOL Guard turns these moments into private receipts first, then public lessons only after redaction and moderation.

Harness setup guides

Protect the coding tools your team already uses without forcing everyone to become a security expert.

Redacted warnings

Real protection moments, scrubbed for safety before becoming public learning pages.

Safe labs

Practice attack patterns with static simulations. Nothing dangerous executes.

Questions

What is MCP tool poisoning?

MCP tool poisoning is when a tool description or schema is malicious or misleading, so the model treats the tool as more trustworthy or capable than it is. Those descriptions can steer planning before a call runs. This hub covers that risk in HOL words; it is not a copy of the OWASP MCP Top 10 long-form text.

Does HOL Guard prevent MCP tool poisoning?

Partially. HOL Guard can require approval when an MCP server changes and when a plugin or skill is installed. Cursor native approvals remain Cursor-owned. Cursor/artifact trust is not full pre-exec of every tool description. Guard is not a complete prompt-injection preventer and does not stop prompt injection before the model reads it.

Does a catalog or plugin scan mean an MCP server is safe?

No. A scan is not a safety guarantee. The current public catalog scanner is registry-broker-fallback static scoring, not a live exploit test. About 205 catalog plugins are not Registry Broker agent counts.

Is HOL Guard a cloud MCP gateway?

No. HOL Guard is local-first runtime control on the developer machine for shell, secrets/file reads, MCP server change, and plugin/skill install. It is not a cloud MCP gateway.