Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Add Model To Group

add_model_to_group

Links a threat model to a tag without moving or copying it, so the model stays independently editable and inherits the tag's compliance frameworks.

Instructions

Add a threat model to a tag. Mutating.

Links the model into the tag without moving or copying it; the model stays independently editable, and may belong to many tags. The model takes on the compliance frameworks the tag selected, marked as the tag's, so removing a framework from the tag removes it from the model again; a framework the model selected itself is left as it is.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesID of the tag.
model_idYesID of the threat model to add.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.85.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / group_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the tag or system."New value: +"ID of the tag."
    • removedInput schema / properties / kind
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "``\"tag\"`` or ``\"system\"``.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "server_version",
-  "kind",
-  "group_id",
-  "model_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "server_version",
+  "group_id",
+  "model_id"
+]
  2. Addedv0.68.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the operation is a link not a move/copy, that the model stays independently editable and may belong to many tags, and critically that tag-selected frameworks propagate and are removed again when dropped from the tag, while self-selected frameworks persist. Missing only auth/permission or failure-mode information.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and mutation flag in the first sentence, then a compact semantics paragraph. Every clause carries information; the framework-inheritance detail could be trimmed slightly but it is substantive rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. For a three-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers the important behavioral question (inheritance/removal semantics) but omits prerequisites and error conditions, leaving a small gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%; the schema documents group_id and model_id but leaves server_version bare. The description adds useful domain meaning by equating 'tag' with group_id, but never references model_id or server_version syntax, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a threat model to a tag') plus a mutation flag. Its sibling remove_model_from_group is the inverse operation, and this description is unambiguous about direction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than stated — nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over remove_model_from_group, list_model_groups, or create_group. The mutation flag gives a weak use signal but there are no explicit when/when-not conditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools