Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

get_compliance_report

Retrieve a compliance gap-analysis report for a framework on a threat model, classifying each requirement as covered, partial, uncovered, unmapped, or excluded. Filter by status and paginate.

Instructions

Get the compliance gap-analysis report for a framework on a threat model. Read-only; no side effects.

Evaluates every framework requirement against the model's mapped controls and classifies each as covered, partial, uncovered, unmapped, or excluded. With no filters it returns a summary; pass status and/or offset/limit to page through per-requirement detail. The framework must first be activated on the model via select_compliance_frameworks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelNoOptional level filter for level-aware frameworks — returns only requirements at or below this level (e.g. 1 for L1 only). Omit for all levels.
limitNoMaximum requirement rows to return. Default 0 = no explicit limit.
offsetNoNumber of requirement rows to skip, for pagination. Default 0.
statusNoOptional status filter: "covered", "partial", "uncovered", "unmapped", or "excluded". Empty = all statuses.
model_idYesID of the threat model.
framework_idYesID of the compliance framework (as listed by list_compliance_frameworks).
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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. It discloses read-only/no side effects, the evaluation logic, classification categories, and the prerequisite activation step. This goes well beyond a generic 'get report' and effectively informs the agent of side effects and dependencies.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds information: purpose+safety, evaluation behavior, and usage patterns/prerequisite. No redundant phrasing; the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, side-effect profile, prerequisite, and filter semantics. An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. For a report-generation tool with multiple sibling variants, this is sufficiently complete for correct selection and invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that status and offset/limit toggle between summary and per-requirement detail, clarifying how parameters affect output. It complements the schema without redundant duplication.

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 states 'Get the compliance gap-analysis report for a framework on a threat model' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling compliance report tools by specifying 'on a threat model' and emphasizes the read-only nature, avoiding tautology.

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 provides clear context: the tool evaluates framework requirements against mapped controls and notes the framework must first be activated via select_compliance_frameworks. It describes the summary-vs-detail behavior with filters but does not explicitly name alternative tools for system/tag reports, so no explicit exclusions.

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