Mipiti MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remediate Finding

remediate_finding

Preview a finding's platform remediation as a structured diff, then apply it after explicit confirmation, recording the operator's justification.

Instructions

Preview, and on confirmation apply, the platform's remediation of a finding.

Without apply it is read-only: it returns a structured diff of what the remediation would change, shaped by the finding's kind (for structural_duplicate_controls: which controls are kept, which dropped, and the CO mappings and framework refs the survivor takes). Show the operator that diff and get explicit confirmation.

With apply=True it commits the change, recording justification (a one-line operator rationale, required) on the audit trail. Never apply without having shown the preview: the platform records who acted but does not enforce the preview — the agent does.

404 when the finding does not exist; 422 when its kind has no automatic remediation (resolve those with the control tools); applying a finding already remediated or dismissed is refused (409).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apply`	No	False (default) previews; True applies.
`finding_id`	Yes	ID of the finding.
`justification`	No	With ``apply=True``: the operator's rationale.
`server_version`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.84.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the read-only vs mutating nature, the audit-trail recording of justification, the fact that the platform records who acted but does not enforce the preview, and exact error conditions (404, 422, 409).

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 front-loaded with the core preview/apply distinction and then adds the confirmation, audit, and error details in tight, information-dense sentences. No sentence is wasted, and the structure mirrors the agent's decision path.

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 a complex mutation with no annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: preview vs commit, required confirmation, audit behavior, and failure modes. It also sketches the returned diff, so it is complete without duplicating the output schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents apply, finding_id, and justification. The description adds useful meaning for apply and justification by explaining the confirmation workflow and audit-trail requirement, but it does not mention server_version at all, leaving one required parameter without semantic support.

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 states a precise verb+resource: preview and optionally apply the platform's remediation of a finding. It clearly distinguishes the read-only preview mode from the mutating apply mode, and the scope is unambiguous relative to siblings like update_finding or auto_remediate_compliance.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: without apply it is a preview, with apply=True it commits, and it says 'never apply without having shown the preview'. It also routes the agent away when the finding kind has no automatic remediation, telling it to resolve those with the control tools.

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

Deploy Server