Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

Get Objective Grouping

get_objective_grouping

Preview how a threat model's objectives would be grouped by identical asset properties before enabling grouping, showing resulting groups, objective counts, and model version without writing changes.

Instructions

What grouping a model's objectives by asset groups would do, before it is done. Read-only: the groups are formed on a copy, and nothing is written or judged.

Assets that are the same for every objective (the same security properties, impact, components, exposure and split knowledge) can be judged together: one objective per group and attacker instead of one per asset. Each asset keeps its id and stays in the inventory, marked with its group.

Returns grouped (whether the model's objectives are grouped now), available (whether grouping may be turned on for this model), groups (each group the restructure would form, by the id it would keep, or new, with its members), objectives_now and objectives_after, and model_version, the version set_objective_grouping names.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesID of the threat model.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.100.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety context itself and does so clearly: 'Read-only: the groups are formed on a copy, and nothing is written or judged.' It also explains that assets retain their ids and inventory membership, which clarifies the non-destructive behavior. It stops short of describing permissions, failure modes, or computational costs, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the read-only guarantee. The later explanation of grouping semantics and return fields is mostly useful, though the return-field list partly duplicates the output schema and makes the description longer than strictly necessary.

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 tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to document return values in full; nevertheless it explains the grouping model and preview behavior well enough for correct invocation. The main gap is the unexplained server_version input, and there is no annotation coverage to fill that in.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter. model_id is at least implied by 'a model's objectives,' but server_version is not explained anywhere in the description or schema, leaving an important input opaque.

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 states a specific preview behavior: it returns what grouping a model's objectives by asset groups would do before it is applied. It also clearly distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling by calling the operation read-only and by referencing set_objective_grouping as the tool that names the model version.

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 phrase 'before it is done' establishes the core use case: preview the grouping outcome before applying a change. The reference to set_objective_grouping further signals the relationship to the setter, though the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over other group-inspection siblings.

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