Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

get_entity

Retrieve a single threat-model entity by type and ID—asset, attacker, component, trust boundary, or assumption—with its native fields and deletion status, so callers can read current security posture records directly.

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. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesID of the threat model.
entity_idYesID of the entity to fetch.
entity_typeYesWhich entity to read — one of ``asset``, ``attacker``, ``component``, ``trust_boundary``, ``assumption``.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral nuances: soft-deleted entities carry 'deleted: true', speculative components are returned as-is with empty repo_url as valid state, assumptions have an override applied mirroring list_assumptions, and exact pass sets for trust_boundary. This exceeds the schema's information, satisfying the full burden of disclosure for a read-only tool.

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 clear bullet points for each entity type, but it is somewhat lengthy. Each bullet provides essential edge-case information, so it earns its place, but a more concise summary could have omitted some examples. Still, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only note.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (dispatches on five entity types with distinct behaviors), the description is highly complete. It explains return format, soft-delete semantics, and special cases for each type. Even with an output schema present, the description goes beyond to clarify subtle behaviors, making it fully sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds significant meaning for entity_type by detailing the dispatch behavior and providing format examples for entity_id (e.g., A-01, T-03). It does not explain server_version, but the schema has no description for it either, and the essential params are well-covered.

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 'Get a single entity of any core type by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the five entity types explicitly. It distinguishes itself from list-type tools by noting it returns the native record as-is, not wrapped in an array, which differentiates it from list sibling tools like 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a single entity by ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives for when to use list tools, but it implies this by contrasting with list behavior. It doesn't exclude cases like using list_* for bulk retrieval, but the per-type dispatch and native record return make its purpose clear.

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