Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Export Report

export_report

Export a threat model as CSV, PDF, HTML, or a JSON audit archive, or a tag cohort as a signed HTML auditor report. Read-only with no side effects.

Instructions

Export a threat model or a tag cohort as a downloadable document. Read-only; no side effects on the source.

scope selects what is exported and how scope_id is read; format selects the representation:

  • scope="model" (scope_id = model id) supports format ∈ {csv, pdf, html, archive}:

    • csv — the model's current state rendered as CSV; returned inline as UTF-8 text in content.

    • pdf / html — rendered document returned base64-encoded in content_b64 (with content_type). Runs as a server-side job; progress is reported automatically while it completes, which may take time for large models.

    • archive — the self-contained, independently-verifiable JSON audit bundle: every version, controls, assertions (with Tier 1 / Tier 2 verdicts and attested flags), findings, risk acceptances, assumption overrides, attestations, and instance sufficiency signatures; each control's per-clause evidence basis travels with it. Those verdicts are the origin's record of what it claimed, which is what a third party checks against the signatures; an importing workspace credits what its own verification establishes (see import_threat_model_archive). Returned as {..., "envelope": <dict>}; feed the envelope to import_threat_model_archive to restore it into any workspace. Model scope only.

  • scope="tag" (scope_id = tag id) supports only format="html": the signed auditor report, aggregating every member model's report plus the cross-model dependency graph and attestation status into one HTML document, returned inline in content. csv, pdf, and archive are rejected for tag scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYesexport boundary — "model" or "tag".
formatNo"csv" (default), "pdf", "html", or "archive". Tag scope requires "html"; "archive" is model-only.csv
scope_idYesid of the model or tag selected by ``scope``.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.68.2

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 it delivers: 'Read-only; no side effects on the source,' inline vs base64 return details, server-side job behavior with automatic progress reporting, the archive envelope's verification semantics, and format rejection rules for tag scope. These are behavioral facts beyond the input schema.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the body is organized as a scannable markdown list. Despite its length, the content is dense and useful, covering format-specific behavior without filler.

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?

For a multi-format export tool with two scope modes and an asynchronous path, the description covers output encoding, job duration expectations, scope restrictions, and relationships to import_threat_model_archive. With an output schema also present, nothing important is left ambiguous.

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?

The description substantially enriches the scope and format parameters, mapping each scope value to valid formats, return encoding, and meaning of scope_id. The one gap is server_version, which is required but neither the schema nor the description explains its intended value.

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: 'Export a threat model or a tag cohort as a downloadable document,' and then precisely distinguishes the two scope modes and format options. This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_threat_model and list_threat_models.

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?

The description clearly conveys when to use the tool (to produce a downloadable/exportable artifact in a read-only operation) and states hard constraints such as tag scope allowing only html and archive being model-only. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead,' so it falls just short of a fully explicit routing guide.

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