A Blast-Radius Auditor for AI Agents Track 03: Enterprise AI & Workplace Automation β NitroStack Hackathon
Aegis is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server built on NitroStack that audits the combined effective permissions of an AI agent across all connected tools. It deterministically detects toxic capability combinations and data-exfiltration vectors before deployment β at zero LLM token cost.
π΄ Live server: https://aegis-6a6d76ee-teamx-srmist.app.nitrocloud.ai/mcp β connect it to Claude, ChatGPT, or NitroStack Studio and try the walkthrough below for real.
- The Problem
- See It Work
- System Architecture
- Detection & Remediation Lifecycle
- Tool & Capability Registry
- Toxic-Combination Policy Rules
- MCP Interface Reference
- Try It Yourself
- Quickstart
- FAQ
- Project Structure
Enterprises connect AI agents to dozens of tools β Gmail, Dropbox, Postgres databases, Slack, filesystem execution. Each integration gets approved individually on its own merits, but nobody audits what the agent can do when tools are combined.
ββββββββββββββββββ ββββββββββββββββββ
β Dropbox MCP β β Gmail MCP β
β (Read Private) β β (Send External)β
βββββββββ¬βββββββββ βββββββββ¬βββββββββ
β β
βββββββββββββ¬ββββββββββββββ
βΌ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
β Support Agent β
ββββββββββββββ¬βββββββββββββ
βΌ
π¨ TOXIC COMBINATION: DATA EXFILTRATION PATH
Warning
READ_PRIVATE_DATA(Dropbox) +SEND_EXTERNAL(Gmail) = π΄ Data Exfiltration PathREAD_PRIVATE_DATA(Postgres) +WRITE_PUBLIC(Slack) = π Public Leak PathDELETE_DATA(Postgres) +EXECUTE(Filesystem) = π Destructive Automation Vector
This isn't hypothetical β it's how the Supabase MCP leak happened (an agent with legitimate database read access was steered via prompt injection into exfiltrating private records through an external channel), how the postmark-mcp supply-chain compromise turned an ordinary "send email" tool into a covert BCC-to-attacker exfiltration path, and the exact mechanism behind documented tool-poisoning attacks, where malicious instructions hidden in a tool's own description hijack agent behavior without ever calling an obviously malicious endpoint. Individually-reasonable permissions become dangerous the moment they're combined, and nothing in the stack today computes that union before it's exploited.
Real, live-rendered screenshots β the actual widgets, fed the actual output of get_capability_graph / detect_attack_paths after connecting gmail + dropbox to one agent.
The graph β dangerous capability paths render in red:
The alert β severity, affected tools, and one-click remediation:
After clicking Fix, apply_policy_fix disconnects every tool supplying the sink capability and the graph goes back to riskScore: 0 β no attack paths, clean state.
flowchart TD
subgraph Host["Chat Host / Client"]
Client["User / AI Agent Host\n(NitroStudio, ChatGPT, Claude)"]
end
subgraph MCP["Aegis MCP Server (NitroStack)"]
Tools["Governance Tools Controller\n(connect_tool, get_capability_graph,\ndetect_attack_paths, apply_policy_fix)"]
Guard["OAuthGuard\n(scaffolded, opt-in via OAUTH_REQUIRED β\nopen by default for the hackathon build)"]
Resources["Resource Server\n(aegis://policies)"]
Prompts["Prompt Controller\n(explain_attack_path)"]
Guard -. wraps connect_tool only .-> Tools
end
subgraph Engine["Deterministic Engine β 0 Tokens"]
Registry["Tool Capability Registry\n(gmail, dropbox, postgres, slack,\nfilesystem, calendar)"]
Store["Per-Agent Connected-Tool Store\n(in-memory)"]
Union["Effective Capability Union\n(getEffectiveCapabilities)"]
Detector["Policy Rule Matcher\n(detectAttackPaths)"]
Registry --> Store --> Union --> Detector
end
subgraph UI["NitroStack Widgets"]
GraphWidget["capability-graph\n(live risk graph)"]
AlertWidget["attack-path-alert\n(severity + one-click Fix)"]
end
subgraph LLM["Groq Explanation Layer β only LLM spend"]
Groq["Llama 3.1 8B Instant\ncached by SHA-256(ruleId + sorted(viaTools))"]
end
Client -->|STDIO / HTTP JSON-RPC| Tools
Tools --> Engine
Detector -->|risk score + danger edges| GraphWidget
Detector -->|threat path list| AlertWidget
Prompts -->|only on a detected path, cache miss| Groq
Groq -->|plain-English finding| Client
AlertWidget -->|Fix click| Tools
flowchart LR
A["1. Connect Gmail"] -->|connect_tool| B["READ_PRIVATE_DATA + SEND_EXTERNAL"]
B --> C["π’ SAFE β riskScore 0"]
C --> D["2. Connect Dropbox"]
D -->|connect_tool| E["+ WRITE_DATA"]
E --> F["Detector checks policy table"]
F -->|source+sink both present| G["π¨ exfiltration DETECTED"]
G --> H["3. Render widgets"]
H -->|get_capability_graph| I["Graph edge turns RED β riskScore 1"]
H -->|explain_attack_path| J["Groq: plain-English summary"]
I --> K["4. Remediate"]
K -->|apply_policy_fix| L["Every tool supplying the sink\ncapability is disconnected"]
L --> M["Status cleared β riskScore 0"]
| Tool | Tool ID | Granted Capabilities | Risk Profile |
|---|---|---|---|
| π§ | gmail |
READ_PRIVATE_DATA, SEND_EXTERNAL |
π High |
| π¦ | dropbox |
READ_PRIVATE_DATA, WRITE_DATA, SEND_EXTERNAL |
π High |
| ποΈ | postgres |
READ_PRIVATE_DATA, WRITE_DATA, DELETE_DATA |
π΄ Critical |
| π¬ | slack |
WRITE_PUBLIC, SEND_EXTERNAL |
π‘ Medium |
| π» | filesystem |
READ_PRIVATE_DATA, WRITE_DATA, EXECUTE |
π΄ Critical |
| π | calendar |
READ_PRIVATE_DATA, WRITE_DATA |
π’ Low |
| Rule ID | Source | Sink | Severity | Violation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
exfiltration |
READ_PRIVATE_DATA |
SEND_EXTERNAL |
π΄ Critical | Agent can read private data AND transmit it externally. |
public-leak |
READ_PRIVATE_DATA |
WRITE_PUBLIC |
π High | Agent can read private records AND post them publicly. |
destructive |
DELETE_DATA |
EXECUTE |
π High | Agent can delete data AND execute unvalidated actions. |
Both tables are just data (TOOL_REGISTRY and POLICY_RULES) β adding a 7th tool or a 4th rule is a one-line change, not new logic.
Tools
connect_toolβ connects a tool (gmail,dropbox,postgres,slack,filesystem,calendar) to an agent. Wrapped inOAuthGuard(scaffolded β enforced only ifOAUTH_REQUIRED=trueis set; open by default for local/demo use).get_capability_graphβ@Widget('capability-graph'). Returns nodes, danger edges, active attack paths, and risk score.detect_attack_pathsβ@Widget('attack-path-alert'). Runs the deterministic rule engine.apply_policy_fixβ disconnects every tool supplying a detected rule's sink capability.
Resource
aegis://policiesβ the toxic-combination policy table as JSON.
Prompt
explain_attack_pathβ takesagentId+ruleId, returns a plain-English explanation via Groq (llama-3.1-8b-instant). Only fires on an already-detected path, cached bySHA-256(ruleId + sorted(viaTools))β this is the only step in the entire system that spends a token.
flowchart LR
Agent(("π‘οΈ Aegis"))
Agent --> T1["π§ connect_tool"]
Agent --> T2["π§ get_capability_graph"]
Agent --> T3["π§ detect_attack_paths"]
Agent --> T4["π§ apply_policy_fix"]
Agent --> R1["π aegis://policies"]
Agent --> P1["π¬ explain_attack_path"]
T2 -.renders.-> W1["π¨ capability-graph widget"]
T3 -.renders.-> W2["π¨ attack-path-alert widget"]
Every step below works against the live server β no local setup needed. Connect https://aegis-6a6d76ee-teamx-srmist.app.nitrocloud.ai/mcp to Claude (Settings β Connectors β Add custom connector) or ChatGPT (Developer Mode β Plugins β Add), or point NitroStack Studio at this repo locally, then walk through the same scenario the screenshots above were taken from:
- Connect a tool. "Connect gmail to demo-agent." β
connect_toolfires. One tool, nothing alarming yet. - Connect a second tool. "Now connect dropbox to demo-agent." β the agent can now both read private data and send it externally.
- See the risk. "Show me its capability graph." β
get_capability_graphrenders β the exfiltration edge is red. This step is pure deterministic rule matching: zero LLM tokens spent to catch it. - Get a plain-English explanation. "What does this mean?" β
explain_attack_pathfires β the only step in the whole system that calls an LLM, and only because a rule already matched. - Fix it. "Fix it." β
apply_policy_fixdisconnects every tool supplying the dangerous capability. The graph goes back toriskScore: 0.
Use any agentId you like β it's just an in-memory key, not a real account.
git clone https://github.com/prince-rai88/aegis-mcp.git
cd aegis-mcp
npm install
cp .env.example .env # add GROQ_API_KEY β free at console.groq.com
npm run devVerify without any GUI:
bash scripts/test-mcp.shOr connect NitroStack Studio β Add Server β Nitro Project β select this folder, then run through the walkthrough above against your local server instead of the live one.
Why deterministic rules instead of having the model decide what's risky?
Because then the audit trail is "the model thought so." Detection here is a fixed rule table (source capability β sink capability), so every flag is reproducible and explainable without re-running an LLM.
Does this scale beyond 6 tools and 3 rules?
TOOL_REGISTRY and the policy rules are both just data β adding a 7th tool or a 4th rule is a one-line addition, not new logic.
What does the LLM actually do, then?
Only explain_attack_path, only after a rule has already fired, cached by SHA-256(ruleId + sorted(viaTools)) so the same finding is never re-explained twice.
aegis-mcp/
βββ src/
β βββ app.module.ts # NitroStack root module
β βββ index.ts # Server bootstrap
β βββ modules/governance/ # Security governance engine
β β βββ capability.ts # Capability model + TOOL_REGISTRY
β β βββ detector.ts # 0-token deterministic detector
β β βββ policies.ts # Toxic-combination policy rules
β β βββ oauth.guard.ts # Scaffolded OAuth guard
β β βββ governance.tools.ts # The 4 MCP tools
β β βββ governance.resources.ts # aegis://policies
β β βββ governance.prompts.ts # Groq explanation prompt
β β βββ governance.module.ts
β βββ widgets/app/
β βββ capability-graph/ # Capability graph widget
β βββ attack-path-alert/ # Attack path alert widget
βββ docs/screenshots/ # Real rendered widget screenshots
βββ scripts/
β βββ test-mcp.sh # Stdio JSON-RPC smoke test
β βββ preview-widgets.html # Local widget preview, no Studio needed
βββ README.md

