Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

import_functional_tests

Import existing tests from your codebase and associate them with functional objectives, so your pre-existing tests count toward conformance.

Instructions

Register tests that already exist in your codebase against a model's functional objectives, so tests you already have count toward functional conformance — not only Mipiti-specified tests. Mutating (bulk).

Scan the repo's test suite and pass the tests here. Optionally associate each with the objective ids it covers (from list_functional_objectives); the platform verifies each association is applicable before accepting it and returns any it rejected under rejected_mappings. A test with no (or a rejected) association is still imported, unmapped, so it can be associated later (see suggest_functional_test_mappings / associate_functional_test). For a single hand-authored test, use add_functional_test instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesID of the threat model.
tests_jsonYesA JSON array of test objects. Each object supports ``test_name``, ``file_path``, ``framework``, ``description``, ``status`` (not_implemented | implemented | verified — an operator claim; an independent CI run is what verifies it), and ``functional_objective_ids`` (list of objective ids the test covers). At least ``test_name`` or ``description`` is required per test; the rest are optional.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation (Mutating (bulk)), verification of objective associations with rejected_mappings, and that unmapped tests are still imported. This clearly sets expectations about the tool's side effects and edge cases.

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 dense but every sentence adds unique value: purpose, mutation hint, association verification, rejection behavior, unmapped handling, and alternative tool mention. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids fluff.

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?

With an output schema present, the description covers all critical aspects: bulk vs single, alternative tools, association verification and rejection, and post-import mapping. It is complete for the tool's complexity and context.

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 schema covers tests_json and model_id, but server_version is undocumented. The description significantly enriches tests_json semantics (required fields, status meaning, rejected_mappings behavior) and clarifies optional objective IDs. It partially compensates for the 67% schema coverage, but server_version remains unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool registers existing tests against a model's functional objectives for bulk conformance counting, and distinguishes it from add_functional_test for single hand-authored tests. The verb 'import' and resource 'functional tests' are specific and unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For a single hand-authored test, use add_functional_test instead.' It also mentions follow-up tools (suggest_functional_test_mappings / associate_functional_test) for later association, providing clear usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Mipiti/mipiti-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server