Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List Decisions

list_decisions

Retrieves a model's decision ledger, showing every recorded judgment newest first with decision maker and delegation-policy status. Read-only; use before proposing or asking for a judgment.

Instructions

List the decision ledger of a model: every judgment recorded on it (finding dismissed or remediated, risk accepted, not-applicable declared, proposal accepted / rejected / reverted, assumption accepted, escalation resolved), newest first, with who made it and whether it was within the workspace's delegation policy. Read-only; no side effects.

Call this BEFORE raising a proposal or asking for a judgment, so you do not propose what a person rejected or ask again for what was already decided.

The ledger is append-only. There is no tool that edits it; to undo an accepted proposal, revert or re-decide, never edit the record. Rows with outcome == "refused" are judgments a program was refused; their escalation, if any, is in list_proposals. agent is null for a person's decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows to return. 0 (default) uses the server default.
decisionNoOptional kind filter, one of ``finding_dismissed``, ``finding_remediated``, ``risk_accepted``, ``not_applicable_declared``, ``proposal_accepted``, ``proposal_rejected``, ``proposal_reverted``, ``assumption_accepted``, ``escalation_resolved``. Empty (default) returns every kind.
model_idYesID of the threat model.
agent_onlyNoOnly decisions made by a program (``agent`` not null). Default False.
server_versionYes
outside_policy_onlyNoOnly decisions made outside the delegation policy in force at the time (``within_policy`` false). Default False.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.83.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / decision / description
      Previous value: -"Optional kind filter, one of ``finding_dismissed``,\n``finding_remediated``, ``risk_accepted``,\n``not_applicable_declared``, ``proposal_accepted``,\n``proposal_rejected``, ``proposal_reverted``,\n``escalation_resolved``. Empty (default) returns every kind."New value: +"Optional kind filter, one of ``finding_dismissed``,\n``finding_remediated``, ``risk_accepted``,\n``not_applicable_declared``, ``proposal_accepted``,\n``proposal_rejected``, ``proposal_reverted``,\n``assumption_accepted``, ``escalation_resolved``. Empty\n(default) returns every kind."
  2. Addedv0.75.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses scope ('every judgment recorded'), ordering, read-only/no-side-effect status, and the append-only ledger invariant with a prohibition ('never edit the record'). It also explains the ``outcome == "refused"`` edge case and the null ``agent`` field, none of which the schema conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the timing rule and then the append-only invariant. Every sentence carries operational value; no filler.

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?

Covers what the tool returns (fields, ordering, policy flag), the mutation boundary (append-only, use revert/re-decide), and the cross-tool handoff for refusals. Output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and no critical detail is missing.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by naming the decision kinds that populate the ``decision`` filter, explaining the ``outcome == "refused"`` semantics, and noting ``agent`` is null for a person's decision. It does not document ``limit`` or ``server_version`` explicitly, keeping it below a 5.

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 verb (list) and resource (decision ledger of a model), then enumerates the exact decision kinds covered and the ordering ('newest first'). An agent can separate it from list_proposals and list_risk_acceptances without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit pre-call rule ('Call this BEFORE raising a proposal or asking for a judgment') plus the reason, and routes the refused-outcome case to list_proposals. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-go-elsewhere are stated.

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