Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get Compliance Report

get_compliance_report

Generate a compliance gap-analysis report for a chosen framework, classifying each requirement at model, system, or tag scope as covered, partial, uncovered, unmapped, or excluded to pinpoint gaps.

Instructions

Compliance gap-analysis report for one framework at a chosen scope. Read-only; no side effects. System/tag scopes require PRO tier.

Evaluates every framework requirement against the mapped controls in scope and classifies each as covered, partial, uncovered, unmapped, or excluded, then returns coverage counts plus per-requirement rows. The framework must first be activated at the same scope via select_compliance_frameworks (with the matching scope), otherwise there is nothing to report on.

scope selects the boundary and how scope_id is read:

  • "model" — a single threat model (scope_id = model id).

  • "system" — rolled up across every model in a System, a group of related threat models (scope_id = system id).

  • "tag" — rolled up across every member model of a tag cohort, a freely-composed set of models (scope_id = tag id).

Filtering / pagination:

  • level — level filter for level-aware frameworks; returns only requirements at or below this level (e.g. 1 for L1 only). Omit (or 0) for all levels. Honored for all scopes.

  • status — one of "covered", "partial", "uncovered", "unmapped", "excluded"; empty = all statuses. Model and system scopes only.

  • offset / limit — per-requirement row pagination; offset skips the first N rows, limit caps rows returned (0 = no explicit limit). Model and system scopes only.

A tag report is neither paginated nor status-filtered; passing status, offset, or limit with scope="tag" raises an error rather than silently returning unfiltered rows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelNooptional level filter; omit for all levels.
limitNomax requirement rows to return, 0 = no explicit limit (model/system scopes only).
scopeYesreport boundary — "model", "system", or "tag".
offsetNoskip the first N requirement rows, pagination (model/system scopes only). Default 0.
statusNooptional per-requirement status filter (model/system scopes only).
scope_idYesid of the model, system, or tag selected by ``scope``.
framework_idYesframework to report on (already selected at this scope; see ``list_compliance_frameworks``).
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv0.68.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / framework_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the compliance framework (as listed by list_compliance_frameworks)."New value: +"framework to report on (already selected at this scope; see ``list_compliance_frameworks``)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / level / description
      Previous value: -"Optional level filter for level-aware frameworks — returns only requirements at or below this level (e.g. 1 for L1 only). Omit for all levels."New value: +"optional level filter; omit for all levels."
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum requirement rows to return. Default 0 = no explicit limit."New value: +"max requirement rows to return, 0 = no explicit limit (model/system scopes only)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / model_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID of the threat model.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Previous value: -"Number of requirement rows to skip, for pagination. Default 0."New value: +"skip the first N requirement rows, pagination (model/system scopes only). Default 0."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "report boundary — \"model\", \"system\", or \"tag\".",
+  "enum": [
+    "model",
+    "system",
+    "tag"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "id of the model, system, or tag selected by ``scope``.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Optional status filter: \"covered\", \"partial\", \"uncovered\", \"unmapped\", or \"excluded\". Empty = all statuses."New value: +"optional per-requirement status filter (model/system scopes only)."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "server_version",
-  "model_id",
-  "framework_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "server_version",
+  "scope",
+  "scope_id",
+  "framework_id"
+]
  2. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.66.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / framework_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the compliance framework."New value: +"ID of the compliance framework (as listed by list_compliance_frameworks)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / level / description
      Previous value: -"Optional level filter (e.g., 1 for L1 only)."New value: +"Optional level filter for level-aware frameworks — returns only requirements at or below this level (e.g. 1 for L1 only). Omit for all levels."
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max to return."New value: +"Maximum requirement rows to return. Default 0 = no explicit limit."
    • changedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Previous value: -"Skip first N."New value: +"Number of requirement rows to skip, for pagination. Default 0."
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Filter: \"covered\", \"partial\", \"uncovered\", \"unmapped\", \"excluded\"."New value: +"Optional status filter: \"covered\", \"partial\", \"uncovered\", \"unmapped\", or \"excluded\". Empty = all statuses."
  3. Addedv0.62.2
  4. Removedv0.62.1
  5. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses read-only/no side effects, error behavior for unsupported tag-scope pagination or status filters, prerequisite activation, and the shape of the returned report. Even the tier limitation is exposed.

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 structured into clear sections: overview, prerequisite, scope semantics, and filtering/pagination. Every paragraph earns its place, and the most critical constraints (read-only, PRO tier, prerequisite) come first. It is long but appropriately so for a complex 8-parameter tool.

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 (8 parameters, scope-dependent behavior, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers all scope interpretations, all filter semantics, parameter restrictions, prerequisite workflow, and error mode. No critical detail an agent needs to call or interpret the tool 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?

The schema covers 88% of parameters, so baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: it interprets scope_id per scope, explains level/status/offset/limit semantics per scope, names the enumeration of status values, and clarifies that tag scope errors on pagination/status args. This clearly exceeds schema descriptions.

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: 'Compliance gap-analysis report for one framework at a chosen scope,' and later details the exact output (coverage counts plus per-requirement rows). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling report tools by focusing on one framework, requirement-level classification, and scope semantics.

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 gives clear context: when the framework must be activated, what each scope means, PRO-tier requirements for system/tag scopes, and which parameters are invalid for tag scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer another report tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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