Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

Answer Entity Question

answer_entity_question

Answer quality-check flags on threat-model assets or attackers using documentation or code evidence, recording the response and re-queuing that entity's check.

Instructions

Answer, with a fact, the flag the quality check raised about an asset or attacker. Mutating; creates no model version.

An entity's quality (on get_entity, the build proposal's flagged entities or the review queue's entity_quality row) carries the verdict's outcome and input_hash. Any flag may be answered: question (answer its question), defect or invalid (answer its warning, for instance where it reads a true claim as not established and the documentation or the code establishes it). Answer from the documentation or the code, stating what the system does and where that is shown; never guess, and never weaken a true claim to clear a flag. The answer is kept with the entity, shown to every later check of it, and queues that entity's check again (and no other's). It decides nothing: the verdict stands until that check runs, and the check may still flag the entity, or propose a correction to apply with apply_entity_proposals. Where a call's response is lost, read the entity before answering again.

Refused 409 stale when the entity, or what it is judged with, changed since the verdict (read it again), 409 not_flagged when no question, defect or invalid verdict stands, 404 for an entity the model does not hold.

Returns {entity_id, answer_id, answered_at, question, queued}.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe answer (at most 4000 characters).
model_idYesID of the threat model.
entity_idYesThe asset or attacker (e.g. "T-04").
input_hashYesThe verdict's ``input_hash`` as it was read.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.97.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: it declares mutability, that no model version is created, that the answer is persisted and shown to every later check, that only this entity's check is queued, and the exact refusal codes (409 stale, 409 not_flagged, 404) with recovery guidance. It even covers the lost-response retry case.

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 the one-line purpose and the mutation caveat, then organized in layers (where flags come from, how to answer, what the answer does, refusals, return shape). It is dense rather than bloated, though the middle paragraph is long enough that a reader must work to find the 'never guess' rule.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 5-required-param mutation with no annotations, this covers everything an agent needs: provenance of the inputs, the staleness contract, side effects, retry semantics, and failure modes. An output schema exists, so the return description is a bonus rather than a gap.

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 description coverage is already 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by framing ``input_hash`` as the verdict's hash 'as it was read' (a concurrency guard that explains the 409 stale refusal) and by constraining ``text`` to evidence-backed statements with no guessing and no weakening of true claims. It does not explain ``server_version``, hence not a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Answer, with a fact, the flag the quality check raised about an asset or attacker') and immediately names the two nearby siblings it is not: check_entity_quality (which raises flags) and apply_entity_proposals (which applies corrections). An agent can distinguish it from revalidate_entity_quality and apply_entity_proposals without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when the tool applies — every flag kind (``question``, ``defect``, ``invalid``) and where the quality data is read from (``get_entity``, the build proposal's flagged entities, the review queue). It also states the exclusions and limits (it decides nothing, the verdict stands until the check runs) and the diagnostic paths for failure, which is more than most definitions offer.

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