Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get Effective Coverage

get_effective_coverage

Retrieve effective coverage per control objective, showing own versus inherited credit and contributing controls, to analyze composed compliance numbers.

Instructions

Effective coverage rollup with credited inheritance.

Read-only. 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 composed (own ⊕ inherited) 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 not available on the backend, coverage is empty and flag_enabled: false.

Paginated: omitting page / page_size defaults to page=1, page_size=100 — a single call no longer returns every coverage row.

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.66.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / origin / description
      Previous value: -"filter coverage rows by contributing-control origin —\none of ``\"own\" | \"cross\" | \"inherited\"``. When omitted,\nrows with any origin mix are returned."New value: +"filter coverage rows by contributing-control origin — one\nof ``\"own\" | \"cross\" | \"inherited\"``. When omitted, rows with\nany origin mix are returned."
  2. Addedv0.62.2
  3. Removedv0.62.1
  4. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
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 it delivers: it declares the operation read-only, specifies the exact return shape, explains the empty-coverage fallback when composition is unavailable, and documents pagination defaults. This is far beyond what structured fields would provide.

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 detailed but well-structured: a one-line summary, a precise behavior paragraph, an explicit return-shape block, and two short notes on fallback behavior and pagination. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

The description is comprehensive: it covers read-only semantics, return structure, composition-unavailable behavior, pagination, and the distinction from get_verification_report. The only notable gap is that server_version is a required parameter with no schema description and no explanation in the tool description, leaving an agent unsure what value to pass.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents page, origin, model_id, and page_size. The description adds useful conceptual context about 'own' versus 'inherited' credit and explains pagination behavior, but it does not add significant meaning for the opaque server_version parameter.

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: 'Effective coverage rollup with credited inheritance.' It clearly defines what is returned per effective control objective and explicitly contrasts itself with get_verification_report, so an agent can distinguish it from a very similar sibling without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states this drives the composition view's coverage/compliance numbers and that it reflects composed own ⊕ inherited math rather than per-model coverage. It names get_verification_report as the alternative for per-model coverage, giving the agent a clear selection rule.

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