Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Edit Asset

edit_asset

Update an existing threat model asset by modifying only specified fields, with LLM validation on identity changes and audit-trailed factor overrides.

Instructions

Edit an existing asset. Only provided fields changed.

When changing identity fields, hold to the asset authoring contract: name the data/resource protected and its security property, not a mechanism — otherwise the result is flagged with a quality_warning (see add_asset). There is no status field to set.

The composed impact is server-derived from the factor fields; there is no way to set it directly. To change the rating, set factor values (the platform composes the new rating) and supply change_reason documenting the operator override of the LLM-generated factors. The reason is captured in the rating-revision audit trail.

LLM-gated on identity-bearing fields (name, description, security_properties). Factor and notes edits skip the gate.

Outcomes when identity fields change:

  • Accepted edit (LLM classifies as preserve) — normal envelope response.

  • Rejected edit (LLM classifies as replace / ambiguous) — {"accepted": False, ...}; nothing saved. Soft-delete + add-new instead.

Editing a soft-deleted asset is rejected — restore_entity (entity_type="asset") first. 503 on evaluator outage, 502 on malformed response, 400 when factor fields are sent without change_reason.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name (optional).
notesNoNew notes (optional).
asset_idYesID of the asset (e.g., "A1").
model_idYesID of the threat model.
descriptionNoNew description (optional).
blast_radiusNo"Isolated" | "Multiplicative" | "Cascading".
change_reasonNoRequired when any factor field is supplied — documents the operator override of LLM-generated factors for the audit trail.
recoverabilityNo"Trivial" | "Manageable" | "Permanent".
server_versionYes
usage_subscoreNo"None" | "Low" | "High".
impact_rationaleNoNew rationale (optional).
regulatory_scopeNo"None" | "Notification" | "Legal".
integrity_subscoreNo"None" | "Low" | "High".
security_propertiesNoComma-separated properties (optional).
availability_subscoreNo"None" | "Low" | "High".
confidentiality_subscoreNo"None" | "Low" | "High".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.62.2
  2. Removedv0.62.1
  3. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and satisfies it: it discloses LLM gating on identity-bearing fields, the rejected-edit response shape, that nothing is saved on rejection, server derivation of impact, audit-trail capture, and specific 503/502/400 error conditions. This is far beyond a generic 'edit' statement.

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 long but earns its length for a 16-parameter mutation tool: it is front-loaded with the core behavior, then uses bold labels, bullets, and error summaries to make the constraints scannable. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all decision-relevant behavior: partial-update semantics, LLM gating, audit trail, soft-delete handling, and error conditions. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without opening sibling definitions.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 94% schema coverage, the description adds grouping semantics the schema alone does not convey: identity-bearing fields vs factor/notes fields, the no-status-field caveat, the requirement to send change_reason with factor fields, and the impossibility of setting impact directly. It clarifies the relationship between change_reason and the factor/rating parameters.

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 opening sentence 'Edit an existing asset. Only provided fields changed' states a specific verb and resource with scope, and the rest clarifies it updates rather than creates (contrasting with add_asset). It is clearly distinct from sibling edit tools for other entity types.

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 explicit routing and preconditions: soft-deleted assets require restore_entity first, rating changes require setting factor values plus change_reason, there is no status field to set, and rejected edits must be handled by soft-delete + add-new. It names alternatives (add_asset, restore_entity) and the conditions that select them.

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