Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

add_component

Add a component to a threat model.

Instructions

Add a component to a threat model.

Components bridge security architecture to code organization. They map trust boundaries to repos so controls can be scoped to the codebase that implements them. They also drive the deterministic reachability composer's asset-boundary derivation: an asset's trust-boundary footprint is the union of its components' trust_boundary_ids.

A component with empty repo_url is either speculative (your own code, not linked to a repo yet) or external (e.g. a third-party service, the customer's IdP, or other external infrastructure you call but don't own). The component's trust boundary tells them apart: bind an internal-zone component to its repo via edit_component; leave an external-zone component unbound — its component_unbound finding is a permanent external-dependency marker, not a gap to close. Binding by "some client code touches it" is wrong: client code for external dependencies lives in your repo too.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesComponent name (e.g., "Backend API", "Auth Worker").
pathNoPath within repo for monorepos (e.g., "services/auth").
model_idYesID of the threat model.
repo_urlNoRepository URL (e.g., "github.com/org/backend"). Empty string is valid for speculative components — pass a real URL once you've identified the codebase.
server_versionYes
trust_boundary_idsNoComma-separated trust boundary IDs that this component spans (its deployment zone). Drives reach decisions for any asset scoped to this component.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains domain semantics but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or success/failure behavior. It implies creation but does not state any constraints or consequences of adding a component.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed but each sentence adds value, explaining the component model, field semantics, and usage distinctions. It is well-structured in paragraphs, though slightly long; no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the domain complexity, the description provides necessary context about components, trust boundaries, and internal/external distinctions, and relates to edit_component. It does not cover prerequisites like model existence, but the output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Overall sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 5/6 parameters with descriptions, and the prose adds extra meaning for repo_url (speculative/external) and trust_boundary_ids (comma-separated, drives reach decisions). However, server_version lacks any description in schema or prose, leaving a gap for that required parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Add a component to a threat model' and explains what a component represents (maps trust boundaries to code). Distinguishes from siblings like add_asset and edit_component by specifying the component's role and explicitly referencing edit_component for later binding.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use add_component versus edit_component, and clarifies the meaning of empty repo_url for external vs internal components. Warns against incorrect binding, giving concrete when-to and when-not-to usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Mipiti/mipiti-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server