Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get Functional Coverage

get_functional_coverage

Retrieve functional coverage for a threat model: per-objective states, capability-condition matrix, and cell accounting, or set gaps_only to list only actionable gaps.

Instructions

A model's functional coverage report, or just its actionable gaps. Read-only.

By default the whole picture: per-objective state (verified / covered / failing / untested), the Capabilities × Conditions matrix, and the applicable / missing-objective / not-applicable cell accounting. With gaps_only=True only what needs action: applicable conditions with no objective yet, and objectives that are failing or have no passing test.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesID of the threat model.
gaps_onlyNoReturn only the actionable gaps (default False).
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.84.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / gaps_only
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Return only the actionable gaps (default False).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / model_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the threat model whose functional coverage to report."New value: +"ID of the threat model."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.66.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / model_id / description
      Added value: +"ID of the threat model whose functional coverage to report."
  3. Addedv0.62.2
  4. Removedv0.62.0
  5. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly declares 'Read-only' and enumerates what each mode returns. It doesn't discuss permissions, cost, or latency, but for a read-only report the safety profile is adequately disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the read-only flag, then the default behavior, then the gaps_only behavior. The matrix and cell-accounting enumeration is dense but each clause maps to real return content, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description helpfully sketches them anyway. Parameter meaning is covered for the one non-obvious flag, making the definition complete enough to call correctly despite the two undocumented-by-description identifiers.

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 67%, and the description meaningfully expands gaps_only beyond the schema's terse 'Return only the actionable gaps' by defining a gap as applicable conditions with no objective, failing objectives, or objectives lacking a passing test. This adds genuine semantic value, though server_version and model_id rely on the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource ('functional coverage report' for a model) and distinguishes its two modes (full picture vs. actionable gaps). It is clear, but it doesn't differentiate itself from near-siblings like get_functional_objectives, get_sufficiency, or get_verification_report, which also surface coverage-adjacent views.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through the two-mode explanation: default for the whole picture, gaps_only=True when only actionable items matter. However, it never states when to choose this tool over the many sibling reporting/gap tools (check_control_gaps, get_sufficiency), leaving cross-tool selection to inference.

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