Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

auto_remediate

Automatically close compliance gaps in a compliance framework by mapping controls, excluding non-applicable requirements, and suggesting new assets or attackers to fill remaining gaps.

Instructions

Automatically close compliance gaps for a framework. Requires PRO tier.

Three-phase loop: (1) auto-map existing controls to unmapped requirements, (2) exclude requirements for non-applicable taxonomy primitives, (3) suggest and apply new assets/attackers for remaining gaps.

Phase (3) routes every proposal whose name matches a soft-deleted asset/attacker through the same restore-candidate LLM gate add_asset uses, so reanimating a previously removed entity reinstates its stable ID and every CO tombstone + control tied to it (rather than spawning a duplicate fresh ID). The response distinguishes assets_added / attackers_added (genuinely new) from assets_restored / attackers_restored (revived soft- deletes) and lists restored_asset_ids / restored_attacker_ids. Proposals the gate classified as similar (or that fail-closed on an unavailable / malformed gate response) appear under skipped with a per-entry reason — the operator decides whether to restore manually or rephrase.

Converges automatically: stops when fully covered or when no further progress can be made.

This runs automatically when a framework is selected, but can be re-triggered manually if the model changes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesID of the threat model.
framework_idYesID of the compliance framework.
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 carries full burden. It thoroughly describes the three-phase loop, the LLM gate for soft-deletes, response structure distinguishing added vs restored entities, skipped proposals with reasons, and convergence behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear phase enumeration and front-loaded purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value, making it efficient for the task.

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 and presence of an output schema, the description is thorough, covering phases, soft-delete handling, response structure, and convergence. It lacks mentions of side effects or prerequisites beyond PRO tier.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% (model_id and framework_id have descriptions; server_version does not). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema and does not explain server_version or provide any additional parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Automatically close compliance gaps for a framework.' It details a specific multi-phase loop that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like auto_map_controls or check_control_gaps.

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 mentions PRO tier requirement and explains that the tool runs automatically on framework selection but can be manually re-triggered if the model changes. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.

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