Mipiti MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Entity

get_entity

Fetch a single asset, attacker, component, trust_boundary, or assumption by ID from a threat model. Returns the entity's complete native data as-is, including soft-delete status, for read-only access.

Instructions

Get a single entity of any core type by ID. Read-only.

Dispatches on entity_type to the per-type read and returns that type's native record as-is (not wrapped in an array):

asset — the asset's typed fields. Soft-deleted assets carry deleted: true; the caller decides whether to surface them. entity_id e.g. A-01.
attacker — the attacker with its factor decomposition, its surface_extent (unset / point / whole) and surface_extent_source, which says whether a person attested it. Soft-deleted attackers carry deleted: true. entity_id e.g. T-03.
component — the component. Speculative components (repo_url="") are returned as-is: the empty repo IS the lifecycle state, not an error. entity_id e.g. CMP-01.
trust_boundary — the boundary incl. its passes set (closed-vocabulary subset of {Network, Adjacent, Local, Physical}). entity_id e.g. TB-Net.
assumption — the assumption with its override applied (mirrors list_assumptions' merge for one entity: typed fields, the structured exclusion predicate when present, and the override layer — status / justification / linked CO IDs / target model). Soft-deleted assumptions carry deleted: true. entity_id e.g. AS-01.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model_id`	Yes	ID of the threat model.
`entity_id`	Yes	ID of the entity to fetch.
`entity_type`	Yes	Which entity to read — one of ``asset``, ``attacker``, ``component``, ``trust_boundary``, ``assumption``.
`server_version`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.68.2Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses read-only behavior, as-is return shape, soft-delete semantics, speculative component handling, assumption override merging, and closed vocabularies. This goes far beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence summary followed by a scannable per-type bullet list. Each bullet adds real semantic value with concrete examples, and there is no filler or repetition of schema text.

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?

For a dispatch tool spanning five entity types with no annotations, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: type-specific IDs, return shapes, edge cases, and controlled values. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to enumerate return fields exhaustively.

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 coverage is 75%, so the description needs to add value, and it does with per-type entity_id formats and dispatch semantics for entity_type. The server_version parameter remains undocumented, but the parameters that affect correct invocation are well clarified.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('single entity of any core type by ID'), and the read-only nature. The per-type bullets make the scope explicit and distinguish this from siblings like get_threat_model or list_effective_entities.

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?

Clearly indicates this tool is for fetching one entity by ID and limits itself to five core types. It does not explicitly name alternative list/search tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server