Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

apply_control_changeset

Apply a batch of control operations atomically in one transaction to reorganize threat model controls, deduplicate, remap, or delete with built-in orphan guard.

Instructions

Apply a batch of control operations atomically as ONE transaction.

Use this to reorganize a model's controls in a single step — for example to deduplicate controls (remap several onto the right objectives and delete the redundant ones at once), instead of many separate calls. All operations commit together or not at all.

Mapping-only: remap/delete/set_groups change objective mappings and retire controls but never re-author a control's description, so a kept or reused control keeps its status, evidence, and assertions. The orphan guard is evaluated on the FINAL state of the batch, so a delete paired with a covering remap or add in the same changeset is allowed; a changeset that would leave any previously-covered control objective uncovered is rejected as a whole and nothing is written.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opsYesJSON array of operation objects. Each object has an "op" of "remap", "delete", "add", or "set_groups": - remap: {"op": "remap", "control_id": "CTRL-03", "co_ids": ["CO1", "CO2"]} - delete: {"op": "delete", "control_id": "CTRL-09", "reason": "duplicate of CTRL-03"} - add: {"op": "add", "description": "...", "co_ids": ["CO5"], "mitigation_group": 1} - set_groups: {"op": "set_groups", "co_id": "CO1", "groups": {"1": ["CTRL-03"], "2": ["CTRL-04"]}}
model_idYesID of the threat model.
change_reasonYesWhy this reorganization is appropriate (min 10 chars). Recorded on every affected control's version history.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does so thoroughly: atomic all-or-nothing commit, mapping-only effects preserving status/evidence/assertions, orphan guard evaluated on final state, and rejection of changesets that would leave objectives uncovered. This is transparent about failure conditions and side effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is appropriately sized, with the atomicity point front-loaded. It uses three focused paragraphs: definition, usage scenario, and behavioral constraints. Every sentence carries relevant information.

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 tool's complexity (batch operations, transaction semantics, orphan guard), the description covers the essential aspects. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required. Minor omissions like server_version semantics and authorization are secondary; the core behavior is well specified.

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 3 of 4 parameters (75%); server_version is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds substantial meaning for 'ops' by explaining each operation type and the orphan-guard interaction, and for 'change_reason' by noting it's recorded on version history. However, server_version remains a gap that prevents full compensation.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a batch of control operations atomically as ONE transaction.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling single-operation tools by noting this is for batch reorganization rather than many separate calls, and defines its scope as mapping-only.

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?

It explicitly directs usage: 'Use this to reorganize a model's controls in a single step' with a deduplication example, and contrasts with 'many separate calls.' It also implies a when-not by clarifying that it only handles mapping operations, not re-authoring descriptions.

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