Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

get_effective_coverage

Retrieve effective coverage rollup with credited inheritance for a threat model, showing per control objective coverage status, own vs inherited credit, and contributing controls, paginated.

Instructions

Effective coverage rollup with credited inheritance.

Per effective CO: whether it is covered, how much credit comes from controls owned by this model vs inherited from ancestors, and the list of contributing controls (with the owning model id, origin tag, verification status, and mitigation group). This is the surface that drives the composition view's coverage / compliance numbers — it reflects TREE_COMPOSITION_ENABLED math, not the per-model coverage shown by get_verification_report.

Return shape::

{
  model_id, flag_enabled,
  coverage: [
    {co_qid, is_covered, own_credit, inherited_credit,
     contributing_controls: [{control_id, owner_model_id,
       origin, is_verified, mitigation_group}, ...]},
    ...
  ],
  total, page, page_size,
}

When composition is disabled on the backend, coverage is empty and flag_enabled: false.

Omitting page / page_size defaults to page=1, page_size=100 — the response is paginated and no longer returns every coverage row in a single call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-indexed page number (default ``1``).
originNofilter coverage rows by contributing-control origin — one of ``"own" | "cross" | "inherited"``. When omitted, rows with any origin mix are returned.
model_idYesID of the threat model.
page_sizeNocoverage rows per page (default ``100``).
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes pagination behavior, defaults for page/page_size, the consequence of composition being disabled (empty coverage), and the filtering option for origin. It could include more on error handling or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are well-covered.

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?

The description is well-structured with sections (purpose, return shape, notes) and front-loaded with the main verb. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds necessary detail. Could be slightly more concise, but it effectively communicates the tool's behavior.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (coverage rollup with inheritance and pagination), the description covers the core functionality, parameter effects, and edge cases (composition disabled). The presence of an output schema (in text) reduces the need for return value details. Missing items like error handling are common and do not significantly impact completeness for this tool.

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 80%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters affect the output, such as the effect of omitting page/page_size (defaults to page=1, page_size=100) and the meaning of the 'origin' filter. It also clarifies the special case when composition is disabled, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool returns an 'effective coverage rollup with credited inheritance' for each effective control objective, including credit breakdown and contributing controls. It explicitly distinguishes from 'get_verification_report', making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that this tool drives the composition view's coverage/compliance numbers and contrasts it with 'get_verification_report' which shows per-model coverage. It also notes behavior when composition is disabled. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond the one mentioned.

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