Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

lift_composition_entity

Promote a duplicated entity from two descendant models to their lowest common ancestor, resolving field conflicts and updating all affected models.

Instructions

Promote a shared-anchor entity from two sibling descendants to their lowest common ancestor. Mutates state across THREE models.

The operator has confirmed (via the composition lift-candidate view) that the entity local_id_a on descendant_a_id and the entity local_id_b on descendant_b_id are the same logical thing and should be modeled once on the LCA. The route's model_id is the operator's current context model — typically the LCA, but the server accepts any ancestor of both descendants.

Conflict resolution. The server re-detects field-level and attached-state conflicts against current live state before applying. If new conflicts have surfaced since the operator's last candidate fetch, the call returns 400 with the missing conflict keys; refresh the lift-candidate view and resubmit with resolutions covering every key. Each entry in field_resolutions / attached_state_resolutions is "keep_a" | "keep_b" | "keep_both" (union for list/set fields; falls back to B for scalars).

Over-application gate. The lift extends visibility to every descendant of the LCA, not just the two source descendants. The server runs an over-application gate that refuses lifts touching descendants outside an acknowledged set; pass acknowledged_third_party_subtrees to acknowledge specific subtrees, or skip_overapplication_gate=True to override entirely after explicit operator confirmation.

Each affected model (LCA + both descendants) bumps version and emits a model_refined activity event; a structured lift_applied event with the full lift_event payload lands on the LCA. The audit pack surfaces this under lift_history. Reverse it with undo_lift_composition_event (preview first via preview_undo_lift_composition); the inverse operation is split_composition_entity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesEntity kind — one of ``"assets"``, ``"attackers"``, ``"components"``.
model_idYesOperator's context model — the model whose composition view surfaced the candidate. Treated as a route anchor only; doesn't have to be the LCA.
local_id_aYesLocal id of the entity on ``descendant_a_id``.
local_id_bYesLocal id of the entity on ``descendant_b_id``.
lca_model_idYesTarget ancestor model id (the LCA, or any ancestor higher up the chain).
server_versionYes
descendant_a_idYesFirst source descendant model id.
descendant_b_idYesSecond source descendant model id.
field_resolutionsNoOptional per-field resolution map (e.g. ``{"description": "keep_both", "tags": "keep_a"}``).
lca_descendant_idsNoOptional snapshot of the LCA's descendant set used by the over-application gate. Omit to let the server compute it via BFS.
skip_overapplication_gateNoWhen True, bypass the gate after explicit operator confirmation. Default False.
attached_state_resolutionsNoOptional per-state-key resolution map (e.g. ``{"state:assertions/AS3": "keep_b"}``).
acknowledged_third_party_subtreesNoOptional list of subtree roots the operator has acknowledged as in-scope for the lift.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 excellently: it discloses state mutations across three models, version bumps, emitted events, conflict re-detection with 400 responses, the over-application gate, and fallback behavior for scalar fields. This goes beyond simply labeling the operation as a write.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections ('Conflict resolution', 'Over-application gate') and every sentence adds necessary operational detail. For a tool with 13 parameters and complex side effects, this length is justified and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the full lifecycle: prerequisite confirmation, parameter roles, conflict handling, over-application safeguards, side effects, auditability, and reversible operations. It also mentions preview tools for undo, which is valuable context. The output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable.

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 92%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds important semantics beyond the schema by explaining conflict-resolution keys ('keep_a', 'keep_b', 'keep_both'), the role of model_id as a route anchor, and the over-application gate's use of acknowledged subtrees and skip flag.

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+resource: 'Promote a shared-anchor entity from two sibling descendants to their lowest common ancestor.' It clearly states the mutation scope ('Mutates state across THREE models') and differentiates from sibling tools like split_composition_entity and undo_lift_composition_event.

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?

It explains the prerequisite (operator confirmation via lift-candidate view) and when to use the tool, and it references alternatives for reversing or splitting afterward. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when' clause, but the context around conflict refresh and over-application gate provides clear operational guidance.

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