🔧 ProgrammierungThree checks that were green for the wrong reason(16.09.2026 um 06:43 Uhr)
🔧 ProgrammierungTreat the Grader as Code, Not a Hidden Prompt(16.09.2026 um 06:49 Uhr)
🔧 Programmierung[Event Sourcing] Trying out Sekiban DCB: Implementation(16.09.2026 um 06:50 Uhr)
🔧 AI Nachrichten An LLM Is Not Your Backend — Here's What I Learned(16.09.2026 um 06:53 Uhr)
🔧 ProgrammierungA week of NVIDIA news is 5,718 articles. My filter kept 161(16.09.2026 um 06:55 Uhr)
🔧 ProgrammierungThree checks that were green for the wrong reason(16.09.2026 um 06:43 Uhr)
🔧 ProgrammierungTreat the Grader as Code, Not a Hidden Prompt(16.09.2026 um 06:49 Uhr)
🔧 Programmierung[Event Sourcing] Trying out Sekiban DCB: Implementation(16.09.2026 um 06:50 Uhr)
🔧 AI Nachrichten An LLM Is Not Your Backend — Here's What I Learned(16.09.2026 um 06:53 Uhr)
🔧 ProgrammierungA week of NVIDIA news is 5,718 articles. My filter kept 161(16.09.2026 um 06:55 Uhr)

🔧 Programmierung 🕛 vor 4 Monaten 6 Min Lesezeit
0

MCP servers, sandboxed — introducing ACT

↗ Quelle (dev.to)
🗣️ Stimme:
📑 Inhaltsübersicht

Setting up an MCP server for your AI agent today usually looks like this:




CODE
npx -y @some-org/mcp-server # or
uvx some-mcp-server # or the occasional
curl https://example.com/install.sh | bash







The server runs as you. It can read your home directory. It sees your SSH keys, your .env files, your shell history, your browser cookies, your GPG keyring. If the server has a bug — or a malicious dependency sneaks in — the code that reads those files also runs as you. If your kernel or any installed binary has an unpatched local privilege escalation, the agent-invoked tool just inherited that escalation path too.



That isn't a failure mode of any particular MCP server; it's the default deployment model. Ambient-permission native processes, shipped by anyone, invoked on demand by an LLM that's notoriously easy to talk into misusing them."Your agent has your credentials and runs strangers' code on request" is the baseline security posture of every MCP setup built on npx / uvx / curl | bash today. It's a full-blown security nightmare that the industry has collectively decided not to look at.



ACT — Agent Component Tools — is the model that looks at it.



Every ACT tool is a WebAssembly component running inside (next post).



The VM gives us isolation. WASI gives us capability imports. ACT gives us the declaration-plus-ceiling model that makes those capabilities safe to hand to third-party code.






One component, any transport



Because tools are components, not native processes, the host can serve them over whatever wire format the caller wants.




CODE
# Claude Desktop / Cursor / Cline → stdio JSON-RPC
act run ghcr.io/actpkg/sqlite:latest --mcp \
--fs-policy allowlist --fs-allow /tmp/demo.sqlite

# Web backend → REST-ish HTTP with SSE streaming
act run ghcr.io/actpkg/sqlite:latest --http --listen "[::1]:3000"

# Script / CI → one-shot direct call
act call ghcr.io/actpkg/sqlite:latest query \
--args '{"sql": "SELECT sqlite_version()"}' \
--metadata '{"database_path":"/tmp/demo.sqlite"}'

# Browser tab → jco transpile, no server at all
jco transpile ghcr.io/actpkg/sqlite:latest -o dist/







Same component, same tool, four deployments. Whatever new transport shows up next, the component doesn't change.






Writing one



Rust, the whole SDK surface for a trivial tool:




CODE
use act_sdk::prelude::*;

#[act_component]
mod component {
use super::*;

#[act_tool(description = "Reverse a string", read_only)]
fn reverse(text: String) -> ActResult<String> {
Ok(text.chars().rev().collect())
}
}







cargo build --target wasm32-wasip2 --release + act-build pack and you have a .wasm that speaks MCP, HTTP, and the CLI. #[act_tool] derives the JSON Schema from the function signature; #[act_component] emits the WIT export. Python has the same shape with @component / @tool decorators on top of — a small WIT package for cross-cutting types and an opt-in interface package for tool dispatch, with stateful capabilities (sessions, events, resources) layered on as separate opt-in packages. The host ships as act on npm, cargo, and PyPI. A growing set of components is published on .



More on the architecture:





  • — how stateful components (databases, OpenAPI clients, MCP-server proxies) own their per-session state and where authentication actually belongs.



If you write MCP servers, build agent tooling, or work on the component model, we'd love your thoughts. Start at , or open a thread in Discussions.

Vollständiger Original-Artikel
Den kompletten Beitrag mit allen Details direkt auf dev.to lesen.
↗ Original-Artikel auf dev.to lesen
Wie bewertest du diesen Beitrag?
1 Klick Feedback
Teilen mit Netzwerk & Team:

Community-Analysen & Experten-Meinungen 0

Verfasse deine eigene Analyse, teile Workarounds oder diskutiere diesen Vorfall im Blog.
Noch keine Community-Analyse verfasst. Markiere einen Textabschnitt oder klicke oben auf Eigene Analyse verfassen“!
Community Pulse: Relevanz-Einschätzung
1 Klick Experten-Votum
🔴 Akute Relevanz 0%
🟡 In Evaluierung 0%
🟢 Keine Auswirkung 0%
Spannende Innovation 0%
Verwandte Story-Cluster & Quellen (Vektor-KI)
Port 8095 Engine
1 Quelle
Mega-Upate für Google Pixel: Android 17 QPR1 bringt euch 25+ Neuerungen und 20 Fixes
1 Quelle
Three checks that were green for the wrong reason
1 Quelle
The Realpolitik of Tech: Navigating the Machiavellian Reality of People Management
Ähnliche Beiträge
🔍 Verwandte News

Auch interessante Nachrichten MCP servers, sandboxed — introducing ACT

Thematisch verwandte Begriffe: servers, sandboxed, introducing · 6 Treffer

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...