---
title: Information-Flow Control (FIDES profile)
---

<Info>**Protocol Revision**: draft</Info>

**Extension identifier:** `io.modelcontextprotocol/ifc-fides` &nbsp;·&nbsp; **Profile of:** `io.modelcontextprotocol/trust-annotations`

> ⚠️ **Experimental draft skeleton.** This defines a *profile* of the
> [`trust-annotations`](./trust-annotations.mdx) `evidenceRef` slot. It is **not**
> a standalone wire root — see [Why a profile](#why-a-profile).

## Abstract

This extension defines `ifc.fides.v1`, a profile of the `trust-annotations`
`evidenceRef` slot that carries an **information-flow-control label** —
integrity plus confidentiality — following the FIDES model
([arXiv:2505.23643](https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23643)). A host that implements
deterministic information-flow control can consume these labels to decide
whether a tool call is permitted, without baking the IFC model into the core
protocol or into the `trust-annotations` wire surface.

## Why a profile

Information-flow control is one enforcement model among several that reviewers
of SEP-1913 raised — capability tokens, caller/tool cosigning, and
sequence-shape audit records were all put forward. A top-level extension
(`io.modelcontextprotocol/ifc`) would make the FIDES integrity × confidentiality
lattice the namespace root and silently foreclose those other models.

As a `type` value under the open-ended `evidenceRef` slot, the FIDES label is
first-class while the slot stays free for every other model. One reviewer's
framing captured it: IFC "fits relatively well *if you use annotations*" — an
endorsement of IFC as a profile, not as the wire root.

## Motivation

The motivating case is the one raised in the
[2026-05-28 IG meeting](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/discussions/2820):
**a model often cannot tell whether a repository is public or private**, and
lacking that signal it may push private content to a public destination. An IFC
label lets the host track confidentiality (who may read this data) and
integrity (is this data trusted) as context accumulates across tool calls, and
deny or prompt before a flow violates policy.

A public MCP server is the natural emitter. [`github-mcp-server`](https://github.com/github/github-mcp-server)
returns repository data whose confidentiality follows from repository visibility
and collaborator sets — the same public/private signal — but does **not** emit
IFC labels today. Closing that emitter gap is the concrete proof point for this
profile: a host-side consumer of the label shape already exists, so the missing
half is a server willing to emit it, classifying each resource it returns (see
[per-resource classification](#reference-implementation)).

## Specification

### Profile identity

This profile is selected by `evidenceRef.type == "ifc.fides.v1"` on a
`trust-annotations` annotation. A client that does not implement IFC MUST be
able to ignore it safely (the surrounding `sensitive` / `untrusted` booleans and
the `digest`/`canonicalization` pair remain meaningful).

### Label payload

The record referenced by the `evidenceRef` (and, for low-friction adoption, MAY
be inlined by deployments that accept the wire cost) has the shape:

```jsonc
{
  "integrity": "trusted",            // "trusted" | "untrusted"  (FIDES §4.1 two-level lattice)
  "confidentiality": "public"        // "public" | "private"
}
```

| Field | Meaning |
| :--- | :--- |
| `integrity` | Two-level integrity lattice (`trusted` ⊑ `untrusted`): trusted data may flow to untrusted sinks, not vice versa. |
| `confidentiality` | `"public"` = world-readable; `"private"` = an opaque marker meaning "restricted to some reader set". The concrete reader set is resolved host-side at policy-decision time (see [Reader-set resolution](#reader-set-resolution)). |

> **Confidentiality is `public` / `private` only — never a reader list on the
> wire.** Emitting concrete reader identities (e.g. logins) is out of scope: user
> identity is not uniform across servers using different auth methods, the
> identities are themselves access-restricted data, and a single resource can
> have hundreds of readers. The opaque marker keeps the wire shape stable and the
> sensitive resolution host-side.

### Label semantics

- **Join on accumulation.** As a session ingests labeled results, the context
  label is the *join* of what it has seen: integrity degrades toward
  `untrusted`, confidentiality narrows toward the smallest permitted reader set.
  The **integrity join is total and computable from the wire values alone**
  (`untrusted` dominates). The **confidentiality join is NOT computable from the
  opaque wire markers alone** — see [Reader-set resolution](#reader-set-resolution).
- **Policy check before egress.** Before a write/egress tool call, the host
  checks whether the current context label may flow to the call's target. When
  a label is absent, the host falls back to its default (trusted-action)
  policy rather than assuming the worst — labels are an *additive* signal.

> The normative integrity/confidentiality lattice definitions follow the FIDES
> paper, §4.1 and §4.3. This draft references the model rather than restating
> the proofs.

### Reader-set resolution

`"private"` is intentionally opaque on the wire. Two distinct `"private"`
markers (e.g. file contents from two different private repositories) are **not
equal**, and their confidentiality join is **not** the same `"private"` token:
data derived from both may flow only to principals who can read *both* sources —
the intersection of their reader sets. The opaque marker cannot express this
intersection, so a host that needs to make a precise cross-source flow decision
MUST resolve each `"private"` marker to a concrete reader set before joining.

Resolution is a host-side concern, performed at policy-decision time:

1. The host maps each contributing `"private"` label back to its source (e.g.
   via the `evidenceRef.ref` locator, or its own record of which tool result
   carried the label).
2. The host queries the originating system for the current reader set (e.g. a
   repository collaborators lookup) using its own credentials.
3. The host computes the flow decision over the resolved sets (intersection for
   a join of multiple private sources) and then discards them.

Keeping resolution host-side is what lets the wire stay at `public` / `private`
while still supporting precise multi-source decisions.

### Relationship to `trust-annotations`

`ifc-fides` never appears without a host `trust-annotations` annotation
carrying the `evidenceRef`. The booleans are the universally-actionable signal;
the IFC label is the precise, host-checkable evidence behind them.

## Reference implementation

- **Consumer:** a host-side IFC engine that parses the `{integrity,
  confidentiality}` label, maintains a context label across tool results, and
  applies a flow policy before egress operations already exists in practice.
  (Linked once a public reference is available.)
- **Emitter (gap / proof point):** [`github-mcp-server`](https://github.com/github/github-mcp-server)
  is the candidate — it already knows repository visibility and collaborator
  sets, which are the confidentiality inputs. Repository visibility is only a
  *default* hint, not the whole story: a public repository can serve
  sub-resources that are **not** world-readable (draft security advisories,
  draft releases, the collaborator roster itself, authenticated-user fields), so
  a correct emitter MUST classify **per resource returned**, not per repository.
  That makes the emitter a non-trivial proof point rather than a one-line
  `repo.private` read.

## Open questions

- Should the label be inlinable on `_meta.ifc` directly for low-friction
  adoption, or always behind `evidenceRef` for schema minimalism? (Lean:
  permit both; `evidenceRef` is canonical, inline is a convenience.)
- How does GitHub Enterprise `internal` repository visibility map onto the
  `public` / `private` confidentiality model? (Audience is the whole org,
  strictly broader than collaborators — likely classified `private` and resolved
  host-side, or falls back to default policy.)
- Registry coordination with other attestation/evidence profiles
  (e.g. SEP-2787) so `evidenceRef.type` values don't collide.

## Changelog

| Date       | Change                                                       |
| ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 2026-06-10 | Initial draft skeleton. Reframed from a top-level `ifc` extension to a `trust-annotations` `evidenceRef` profile (`ifc.fides.v1`). |
| 2026-06-15 | Confidentiality limited to `public` / `private` on the wire (dropped reader-list); added Reader-set resolution section; emitter classifies per resource, not per repository. (Review: @JoannaaKL.) |