Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

lift_composition_entity

Promote a shared entity from two source models to a common ancestor, resolving field and state conflicts with specified resolution strategies.

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 composition_lift_candidates 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.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively discloses mutation across three models, conflict re-detection, over-application gate, version bumps, events (model_refined, lift_applied), and error handling (400 with missing conflict keys). This level of detail exceeds typical transparency expectations.

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 relatively long but well-structured: one-line summary, then prerequisites, conflict resolution, gate logic, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. A few sentences could be tighter, but every paragraph earns its place by explaining critical behavioral details.

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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, 8 required, output schema exists), the description covers the entire operation: preconditions, conflict resolution, over-application gate, versioning, events, and error codes. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without external documentation. No gaps are evident.

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 description coverage is 92%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing parameters like acknowledged_third_party_subtrees, skip_overapplication_gate, and field_resolutions in the overall operation flow. It doesn't just repeat schema descriptions but explains their role in the gate and conflict resolution logic.

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 it promotes a shared-anchor entity from two descendants to their LCA. The verb 'Promote' and the phrase 'Mutates state across three models' uniquely identify this operation. It distinguishes from siblings like split_composition_entity and preview_undo_lift_composition.

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 description explicitly states the precondition: operator must have confirmed the two entities are the same via the composition lift-candidate view. It also details when to resubmit after conflict, and the over-application gate mechanism. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives, though the context is clear. Sibling tools exist but the description focuses on this tool's specific use case.

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