Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

Get Control Work Order

get_control_work_order

Read the read-only work order for a control before implementing it, including objectives, required evidence, acceptance criteria, steps, and delegation rules.

Instructions

The work order for one control: the ticket to read BEFORE implementing it. Read-only.

Returns {model_id, model_version, control, objectives, max_tier, scan_brief, assertion_contract, acceptance_criteria, required_evidence, steps, reconcile_rules, delegation, open_proposals, provenance}: where to look, what counts as proof (assertion_contract: the types by soundness class, the evidence and universal_rule, the sound_types the platform takes, what to submit with, when the control counts as verified), what to do when the code disagrees with the model, what this agent may decide alone (delegation), and whether code or description is authoritative (provenance).

Where the order names a required class for a clause, required_evidence holds one entry per such clause: its clause, the clause_id to put in covers, its quantifier, the required_class, what is missing, and a suggested_submission skeleton. The skeleton is a fill-in, not a submission: replace its <...> placeholders; one left unfilled is refused, by this client and again by the platform, since it would record a claim nothing backs. A for-all clause takes [by_construction, sound_over_approximation]: prefer typed_boundary (the type the sinks accept, its constructors), else sink_default_deny (the sinks, the safe forms, a reviewed allowlist). When the bound evidence is the wrong CLASS, missing says so. acceptance_criteria is GENERATED from those entries, so a clause that must hold at every site reads as such and no number of tests closes it.

A type's soundness is the class to branch on; behavioral is a compatibility field for readers written before the classes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYes
control_idYes
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.84.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / control_id / description
      Removed value: -"ID of the control to implement (e.g. \"CTRL-03\")."
    • removedInput schema / properties / model_id / description
      Removed value: -"ID of the threat model."
  2. Addedv0.75.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: it declares read-only behavior, describes the returned contract fields, and explains validation rules such as unfilled placeholders being refused by both client and platform. It omits auth requirements and error modes, but for a read-only tool this is a strong disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense wall of domain-specific prose. Most sentences are relevant to the work-order contract, yet the lack of formatting and heavy nesting make it harder to scan than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, though it still does at length. The critical gap is input guidance: with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, an agent receives no help understanding the three required inputs, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for three required parameters: server_version, model_id, and control_id. The description does not explain what any of these inputs mean or what format they expect, so it adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and scope: 'The work order for one control,' and clarifies it is the ticket to read before implementing it. It distinguishes itself from mutation-oriented siblings by explicitly saying 'Read-only,' but it does not name any alternative tool for comparison.

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 gives clear timing guidance: read this 'BEFORE implementing' the control. That is a useful usage context, but it provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tools for when this is not the right call.

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