Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get Risk View

get_risk_view

Retrieve a prioritized risk view ranking live control objectives by risk tier, control coverage, and open findings for a threat model or tag scope, so teams can triage what needs attention.

Instructions

Prioritized Risk View — one row per live Control Objective — at a chosen scope. Read-only; no side effects.

scope selects the aggregation boundary and how scope_id is interpreted:

  • "model" — a single threat model (scope_id = model id). One row per live CO with derived risk tier, asset impact, attacker likelihood, control coverage counts (coverage_ratio), and open-finding count (open_findings). Tombstoned COs are excluded; pair with get_threat_model if historical context is needed. Use to triage which COs need attention on one model — a single call ranks the work, no per-CO fan-out.

  • "tag" — every member model of a tag (scope_id = tag id). The same row shape with model_id and model_title added per row, so rows can be grouped by source model without an extra lookup, and delegation-aware (delegation_mitigated / delegating_controls): a CO mitigated via a verified cross-model delegation reads as covered, consistent with each model's own assessment. Use for a product, portfolio or audit-scope posture rollup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYesaggregation boundary — "model" or "tag".
scope_idYesid of the model or tag selected by ``scope``.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.85.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"aggregation boundary — \"model\", \"system\", or \"tag\"."New value: +"aggregation boundary — \"model\" or \"tag\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "model",
-  "system",
-  "tag"
-]New value: +[
+  "model",
+  "tag"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope_id / description
      Previous value: -"id of the model, system, or tag selected by ``scope``."New value: +"id of the model or tag selected by ``scope``."
  2. Addedv0.68.2

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares 'Read-only; no side effects,' states that tombstoned COs are excluded, discloses the row shape (coverage_ratio, open_findings, risk tier, asset impact, attacker likelihood), and explains the delegation-aware semantics that make a cross-model-mitigated CO read as covered. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 one-line summary followed by a clean two-bullet breakdown. Dense but almost every clause carries information; the embedded field lists in the 'model' bullet are slightly heavy, keeping it just short of maximally tight.

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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with a low-complexity schema and an output schema that covers return structure, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, scope semantics, exclusions, and delegation handling. Nothing material is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%, but the description compensates richly by defining how scope_id is interpreted under each scope value ('model id' vs 'tag id') and what the resulting rows contain per scope. This adds meaning well beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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?

Names a specific resource and return grain: 'Prioritized Risk View — one row per live Control Objective — at a chosen scope.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_controls, get_findings_risks, and get_compliance_report without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly enumerates both scope modes and when each applies: 'model' for triaging one model's COs ('a single call ranks the work, no per-CO fan-out'), 'tag' for product/portfolio/audit-scope rollups. It also names the paired tool (get_threat_model) for historical context, giving clear when-not 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