Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Map Control To Requirement

map_control_to_requirement

Manually link one security control to one compliance-framework requirement, record the mapping, and update the requirement's coverage in the compliance report.

Instructions

Manually map one security control to one compliance-framework requirement. Mutating: records a control-to-requirement mapping, which re-derives that requirement's coverage in the compliance report.

Use for a single, deliberate mapping you are asserting by hand. To let the LLM propose mappings across many requirements at once, use auto_map_controls; to close gaps end-to-end (map + exclude + fill), use auto_remediate_compliance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoOptional free-text note explaining the mapping rationale.
model_idYesID of the threat model.
confidenceNoProvenance label recorded on the mapping: "manual" (default, operator-asserted), "llm" (machine-suggested), or "verified" (human-confirmed).manual
control_idYesID of the control to map (e.g. "CTRL-01").
framework_idYesID of the compliance framework.
requirement_idYesID of the requirement to map to (e.g. "V2.1.1").
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.66.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confidence / description
      Previous value: -"Mapping confidence: \"llm\", \"manual\", \"verified\"."New value: +"Provenance label recorded on the mapping: \"manual\" (default, operator-asserted), \"llm\" (machine-suggested), or \"verified\" (human-confirmed)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / control_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the control (e.g., \"CTRL-01\")."New value: +"ID of the control to map (e.g. \"CTRL-01\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / notes / description
      Previous value: -"Optional notes about mapping."New value: +"Optional free-text note explaining the mapping rationale."
    • changedInput schema / properties / requirement_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the requirement (e.g., \"V2.1.1\")."New value: +"ID of the requirement to map to (e.g. \"V2.1.1\")."
  2. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It opens with 'Mutating:' and explains the consequence: recording the mapping re-derives that requirement's coverage in the compliance report. It does not state idempotency or overwrite behavior, but the core side effect is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and side effect, the second gives usage guidance and alternatives. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and high parameter coverage, the description covers the key decision factors: what it does, that it mutates, the resulting report effect, and when to choose an alternative. Minor omissions like overwrite semantics and the unexplained required 'server_version' parameter keep it from a perfect score.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters with examples. The description adds only indirect context — 'asserting by hand' aligns with the confidence default 'manual' — but offers no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('map'), resource ('one security control to one compliance-framework requirement'), and explicitly scopes to a single deliberate mapping. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming auto_map_controls (many at once) and auto_remediate_compliance (end-to-end gap closure).

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 says 'Use for a single, deliberate mapping you are asserting by hand.' Names two alternatives with the exact conditions for choosing them: batch LLM proposals via auto_map_controls, and end-to-end gap closure via auto_remediate_compliance.

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