Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get Entity

get_entity

Retrieve a single threat-model entity by type and ID, including assets, attackers, components, trust boundaries, or assumptions, with deletion and override details.

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). 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.68.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that records are returned natively (not wrapped in an array), that soft-deleted entities carry deleted: true rather than erroring, that speculative components with empty repo_url are a valid lifecycle state, and that assumptions return with their override merged.

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 purpose and read-only status are front-loaded in the first two lines, then structured as a scannable per-type bullet list. Each bullet carries type-specific semantics rather than filler, though the overall body is long and slightly repetitive in its per-type 'entity_id e.g.' phrasing.

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?

All five dispatchable entity types are covered with their distinctive return semantics, and an output schema exists to document return shape. For a typed-getter tool, an agent has everything needed to select the right entity_type and interpret the response.

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% and the schema already enumerates entity_type values, so the description is not strictly required here. It still adds value by giving concrete entity_id format examples per type (A-01, T-03, CMP-01, TB-Net, AS-01) and by tying each entity_type to the specific shape returned.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get a single entity of any core type by ID') and immediately states read-only. It also names the dispatch mechanism (entity_type) and enumerates the five core types, clearly separating it from siblings like edit_asset, add_asset, and remove_entity.

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 implies single-entity lookup by ID and states the tool is read-only, which frames the usage context. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with enumeration siblings (list_threat_models, list_assertions) or states when not to use it, so no explicit alternative routing is provided.

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