Mipiti MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Export Report

export_report

Export a threat model as CSV, PDF, HTML, or JSON audit archive, or a tag as an HTML auditor report. Read-only; no source changes.

Instructions

Export a threat model or a tag 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 of the model's current state: its latest version and controls, live assertions (with Tier 1 / Tier 2 verdicts and attested flags) and the runs behind them, open findings and those a person closed, risk acceptances and other decisions in force, assumption overrides, attestations, and instance sufficiency signatures; each control's per-clause evidence basis travels with it. Earlier versions, activity and chat are not in 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, every member model's report after the reliance edges among the members (each with its status and whether it credits its objective), in one HTML document returned inline in content. csv, pdf, and archive are rejected for tag scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	Yes	export boundary — "model" or "tag".
`format`	No	"csv" (default), "pdf", "html", or "archive". Tag scope requires "html"; "archive" is model-only.	csv
`scope_id`	Yes	id of the model or tag selected by ``scope``.
`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: it declares read-only/no side effects, discloses that pdf/html run as a potentially slow server-side job with automatic progress reporting, specifies the exact return fields per format (content, content_b64 + content_type, envelope), and enumerates what the archive does NOT include (earlier versions, activity, chat).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and safety note, then organized as a clean scope→format matrix. The archive bullet is dense and long, but every clause conveys behavior an agent needs (contents, exclusions, return shape, downstream tool); minor verbosity 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still pins down the format-dependent return keys, which is exactly the ambiguity an output schema alone would leave. For a read/export tool with two enums and a cross-field constraint, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 75%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond it: it explains that scope determines how scope_id is interpreted, which format values are legal per scope, and what each format's payload actually is. It documents the interaction the flat schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (export a threat model or tag as a downloadable document) and immediately bounds scope to two entity types. It also names the counterpart tool (import_threat_model_archive), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use mapping: which format applies to which scope, and explicitly states that csv/pdf/archive are rejected for tag scope. It routes to import_threat_model_archive for restoring an archive. It stops short of stating when to prefer a different export/report tool (e.g. get_compliance_report, get_verification_report), so not a full 5.

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

Deploy Server