Mipiti MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Assign To Components

assign_to_components

Replace an asset's or control's component scope to link it to the repos that implement it. Assigning components makes controls visible to coding agents in those repos; clearing the scope removes the binding.

Instructions

Replace an asset's or a control's component scope. Mutating.

Components are the canonical bridge between security architecture (trust boundaries) and code organization (repos). target_type selects what is being scoped:

"control" — replace a control's component scope. A control scoped to one or more components is visible to coding agents working in those repos (matched via Component.repo_url + Component.path); an unscoped control is visible everywhere. Use when wiring a previously unscoped control to the component(s) that implement it, adding a second component to a cross-cutting control (e.g. "all microservices enforce JWT validation"), or correcting a wrong assignment. target_id is the control ID (e.g. "CTRL-03").
"asset" — replace an asset's component scope. Linking assets to components flows boundary context into reachability derivation without giving Asset its own trust_boundary_ids. Multi-component is the right shape for a multi-instance asset (e.g., a session token on client + cache + DB — each component handles a distinct instance). target_id is the asset ID (e.g. "A1").

Both variants are mechanical / non-AI-gated and validate only that every referenced component exists on the model.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model_id`	Yes	ID of the threat model.
`target_id`	Yes	ID of the asset or control to scope (must match ``target_type``).
`target_type`	Yes	Either "asset" or "control" — which entity to scope.
`change_reason`	Yes	Why this scope is appropriate (min 10 chars). Captured in the version history.
`component_ids`	Yes	Comma-separated component IDs (e.g., "CMP1,CMP2"). Empty string = unscoped (a control becomes visible to every coding agent; an asset loses its explicit code-ownership binding). Every supplied ID must exist on the model.
`server_version`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.68.2Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it flags the operation as 'Mutating,' states both variants are 'mechanical / non-AI-gated,' and discloses the only validation rule. It also explains downstream effects like visibility to coding agents and boundary context flowing into reachability derivation.

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 core action and mutation flag are front-loaded, and the two variants are organized in clean bullets. Every sentence earns its place, with concrete examples and domain rationale that support correct invocation rather than padding.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. The description covers both target types, appropriate use cases, replacement semantics, unscoping via empty string, and validation rules, making it complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is already high at 83%, and the description still adds meaningful value for target_type, target_id, and component_ids with examples, empty-string behavior, and multi-instance asset guidance. It leaves server_version undocumented in both schema and description, which prevents 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace an asset's or a control's component scope.' The two target_type variants are fully spelled out with examples, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like add_component or edit_component.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit 'Use when' scenarios for the control variant: wiring an unscoped control, adding a second component to a cross-cutting control, and correcting a wrong assignment. It explains the asset variant's purpose for reachability, but it does not name when-not-to-use conditions or alternative sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server