Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

Get Functional Objectives

get_functional_objectives

List a threat model's functional objectives or fetch one by ID to read its capability, condition, Given-When-Then test plan, and current test state.

Instructions

List a model's functional objectives, or fetch one by id. Read-only; no side effects.

A functional objective is a Capability × Condition test plan expressed as a Given-When-Then statement. functional_objective_id selects the behaviour:

  • omitted / empty string -> list every functional objective for the model (the full functional test plan).

  • a functional-objective id -> return just that one objective's detail, including its capability, condition, Given-When-Then statement, and current test state.

For pass/fail coverage state across all objectives use get_functional_coverage; for the actionable gaps use check_functional_gaps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesID of the threat model whose functional objective(s) to read.
server_versionYes
functional_objective_idNoOptional. Omit (or pass "") to list every objective; pass an id (from a prior list call) to fetch that one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.68.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only; no side effects' and explains the branching behavior for omitted vs provided functional_objective_id, including what detail a fetch returns. It does not mention error cases or permissions, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 well-structured: read-only status is front-loaded, the functional objective concept is explained briefly, parameter behavior follows, and sibling tool routing closes it out. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation, with no filler.

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?

The output schema covers return-value structure, and the description covers purpose, modes, parameter semantics, and alternative tools. The only notable gap is the undocumented required server_version parameter, which prevents the description from being fully complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 description adds meaningful semantics to functional_objective_id beyond the schema, clarifying that omission/empty string lists all objectives and a prior-list id fetches one detail. It also identifies model_id as the threat model whose objectives are read. However, server_version remains semantically undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: 'List a model's functional objectives, or fetch one by id.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings by name (get_functional_coverage, check_functional_gaps) and explains the two operational modes.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the list mode versus the fetch-by-id mode based on functional_objective_id. It also names the exact sibling tools to use for pass/fail coverage and actionable gaps, giving the agent unambiguous 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

Other Tools