Get This Tool
ModelFuzz
Pricing
- Model
- Free
Summary
Prompt-level filters assume the model will behave — but the model already believes it's doing the right thing when it exfiltrates your API key to attacker@evil.com. ModelFuzz intercepts that call at the execution layer, before the damage is done.
The library ships two halves: a red-team scanner that fires deceptive prompt-injection payloads at any OpenAI-compatible endpoint so you can see which attacks actually trigger a tool call, and a decorator that wraps individual tools and checks every argument against your policies before the function executes. The decorator approach means enforcement lives in your code, not in a separate proxy or prompt. The policy engine works on argument content — keyword matching and pattern rules the docs describe — which catches known-bad patterns well but leaves gaps for novel exfiltration routes that do not match existing rules. A hosted dashboard with centralized policies and audit logs is on a waitlist and not yet available, so teams running multiple agents coordinate policy changes manually across codebases.
Bottom line: Drop this in when you are building an agent with tool-calling and need execution-layer enforcement fast — but plan additional policy infrastructure the moment you have more than a handful of tools or need audit trails across a team.
Community Performance Report Card
No community ratings yet. Be the first to rate this tool!
Community Benchmarks Community
Sign in to submit a benchmarkNo community benchmarks yet. Be the first to share a real-world data point.
Pros
Sign in to edit- Execution-layer interception via a single decorator, which means a compromised LLM decision gets stopped before the tool function runs — not after secrets are already in transit.
- Bundled red-team scanner targets any OpenAI-compatible endpoint, so you get a concrete vulnerability report — which payloads triggered a tool call, what percentage landed — before you write a single policy rule.
- MIT-licensed and self-hostable with no runtime cloud dependency, which means enforcement works in air-gapped or on-premise environments where a SaaS security proxy is not an option.
- Pure Python decorator integration, so adding shield coverage to an existing agent requires editing one line per tool function rather than restructuring the agent architecture or routing traffic through a sidecar.
Cons
Sign in to edit- Policy enforcement is rule-based against argument content — keyword and pattern matching as the docs describe. When an attacker uses encoded payloads, splits sensitive data across multiple arguments, or exploits a channel your rules do not cover, the block does not fire. Teams handling adversarially sophisticated injection will need to write, test, and maintain an expanding ruleset rather than rely on the defaults.
- There is no team-level policy management, centralized audit log, or dashboard available outside a waitlist. A team running four agents with overlapping tool sets coordinates policy changes by editing files in four separate codebases. When that coordination cost exceeds the deployment overhead of a dedicated security proxy or a commercial LLM firewall, teams move to those alternatives.
- The scanner targets OpenAI-compatible endpoints only. Agents built on frameworks that do not expose a compatible API surface — or that use non-standard tool-calling schemas — cannot be red-teamed with the CLI without custom adaptation, which the docs do not describe.
Community Reviews
Sign in to write a reviewNo reviews yet. Be the first to share your experience.
About
- Platforms
- Python
- API Available
- No
- Self-Hosted
- Yes
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-28T09:01:25.936Z
Best For
Who it's for
- Developers building LLM agents with tool calling
- Teams needing execution-layer security beyond prompt filters
- Auditing agent vulnerability to indirect prompt injection
What it does well
- Shielding agent tools against prompt injection
- Red-teaming OpenAI-compatible LLM endpoints
- Preventing data exfiltration via compromised agent tools
- Enforcing runtime policies on tool arguments
Integrations
Discussion Community
Sign in to commentNo discussion yet. Sign in to start the conversation.
Compare ModelFuzz
Spotted incorrect or missing data? Join our community of contributors.
Sign Up to ContributeCommunity Notes & Tips Community
Sign in to contributeBe the first to contribute. General notes, observations, gotchas, and tips from people who use this tool day-to-day.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is ModelFuzz free?
- Yes — ModelFuzz is fully free to use. There is no paid tier.
- Is ModelFuzz open source?
- Yes. ModelFuzz is open source.
- Can I self-host ModelFuzz?
- Yes. ModelFuzz supports self-hosting on your own infrastructure.
- What platforms does ModelFuzz support?
- ModelFuzz is available on: Python.
Hours Saved & ROI Stories Community
Sign in to contributeBe the first to contribute. Concrete time/cost savings, with context. e.g. "Cut my code review backlog from 4h to 45m per week."
Curated lists that include this category
An agent that calls tools is only as safe as the arguments it passes to them. ModelFuzz addresses this by sitting between the LLM’s decision and the function that executes it. The core workflow is a Python decorator: wrap any tool function with `@shield_tool`, define your policies, and any call that violates those policies raises a `ModelFuzzBlockError` before the underlying function runs. Installation is `pip install modelfuzz`; no hosted dependency is required at runtime.
The differentiating feature is the pairing of offense and defense in one package. The CLI scanner — `modelfuzz scan` — accepts an OpenAI-compatible endpoint and model name, fires a suite of indirect prompt-injection payloads, and reports which ones successfully tricked the agent into executing a tool. That output is a direct map of your attack surface before you deploy shields. Most security libraries pick one side; ModelFuzz lets you find the holes with the scanner, then seal them with the decorator, in the same tool.
The library fits cleanly into codebases where tool functions are discrete Python callables — a `send_email`, an `http_post`, a `shell.run`. The enforcement happens at argument inspection: the blocked example in the docs catches `’secret’` as a sensitive keyword in an outbound email body. That works for known-bad patterns, but policy coverage is only as good as the rules you write. Teams encountering novel exfiltration paths — encoded payloads, indirect channels, arguments that split sensitive content across fields — will need to write and maintain custom rules. The hosted dashboard with centralized policy management and team-level audit logs is listed as a waitlist feature and is not publicly available, so multi-agent deployments today manage policy files per codebase.
