Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

get_effective_coverage

Retrieve effective coverage for a threat model, showing own and inherited credits and contributing controls. Understand compliance by seeing which controls cover each control objective.

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

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers: it states "Read-only," gives the full return shape, explains behavior when composition is unavailable (coverage empty, flag_enabled false), and discloses pagination defaults. This goes well beyond what a minimal description 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 organized for efficient scanning: a one-line summary, a clarifying paragraph, a literal return-shape block, and a short note on edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place; despite its length, it is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 tool is complex (rollup with inheritance), yet the description covers the key dimensions: return structure, pagination behavior, composition-unavailable fallback, and how it relates to get_verification_report. Output shape is included inline, so the agent has a full picture of what to expect.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces pagination defaults and origin filtering, but these details are already present in the schema; no additional semantic meaning for parameters like server_version is offered. It does not meaningfully exceed the schema's documentation.

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-resource-scope phrase: "Effective coverage rollup with credited inheritance." It further clarifies exactly what is returned (per effective CO: covered status, own vs inherited credit, contributing controls) and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_verification_report, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: "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." This names the alternative and gives a clear exclusion, which is exactly what strong usage guidance looks like.

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