Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Apply Finding Remediation

apply_finding_remediation

Apply an approved remediation for a security finding, committing the previewed diff and recording the operator's justification for the audit trail.

Instructions

Apply the remediation for a finding. Mutates state.

Commits the changes preview_finding_remediation showed. The justification is recorded in the audit trail and shown in any future review of why this cleanup was run.

DO NOT call this without first calling preview_finding_remediation and showing the operator the diff. The agent's role is to surface what's about to happen and get explicit operator confirmation; the platform records who acted but doesn't enforce the preview-then-apply norm — the agent does.

Returns 404 if the finding doesn't exist; 409 if the finding is already remediated or dismissed; 400 if justification is empty; 422 if the finding's kind has no automatic remediation handler.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
finding_idYesID of the finding to remediate.
justificationYesOne-line operator rationale recorded on the audit trail. Must be non-empty.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.62.2
  2. Removedv0.62.0
  3. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation mutates state, commits previewed changes, records justification in the audit trail, does not enforce the preview-then-apply norm itself, and documents all relevant error statuses (404, 409, 400, 422). This gives the agent a strong model of side effects and failure modes.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then workflow/audit context, then the critical safety warning, then error semantics. Each sentence adds relevant operational value and none feel redundant.

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?

The description fully covers the safety-critical workflow, audit implications, and error handling, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required. The only notable gap is server_version, which remains unexplained, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description adds useful meaning for finding_id and justification by tying them to error codes and audit-trail behavior, but server_version has no schema description and the description does not clarify its purpose or format. With only 67% schema coverage and no description of server_version, the parameter semantics are only partially compensated.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Apply the remediation for a finding'), explicitly states it mutates state, and distinguishes itself from preview_finding_remediation by describing this as the follow-up commit step. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its preview sibling.

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?

The description gives an explicit, direct usage rule: DO NOT call this without first calling preview_finding_remediation and showing the operator the diff. It also defines the agent's responsibility to obtain explicit operator confirmation, making the when-to-use and workflow clear.

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