Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Select Compliance Frameworks

select_compliance_frameworks

Set active compliance frameworks at model, system, or tag scope to enable gap analysis and audit-boundary reporting. For models, triggers auto-remediation of missing controls and requirement gaps.

Instructions

Select (activate) compliance frameworks at a chosen scope. Requires PRO tier. Mutating.

Discover valid ids with list_compliance_frameworks (or add a custom one via import_compliance_framework); view the resulting gap analysis with get_compliance_report at the same scope. Re-calling replaces the scope's framework selection.

scope selects the target and how scope_id is read:

  • "model" — a single threat model (scope_id = model id). Activating a framework also kicks off background auto-remediation: it auto-maps existing controls to requirements, excludes non-applicable requirements by taxonomy, and suggests/applies new entities for the remaining gaps. The response includes auto_remediate_jobs, which run and complete on their own; re-trigger later with auto_remediate_compliance if the model changes.

  • "system" — a System, i.e. a group of related threat models (scope_id = system id). Sets the system's active frameworks for portfolio-level compliance reporting.

  • "tag" — a tag cohort (scope_id = tag id). Records the frameworks against the tag AND propagates them to every member model, making the tag a compliance scope (e.g. an audit boundary) spanning several models.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYestarget boundary — "model", "system", or "tag".
scope_idYesid of the model, system, or tag selected by ``scope``.
framework_idsYescomma-separated framework ids (e.g. "asvs-4.0,nist-csf").
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.68.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / framework_ids / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated framework IDs (e.g. \"asvs-4.0,nist-csf\")."New value: +"comma-separated framework ids (e.g. \"asvs-4.0,nist-csf\")."
    • removedInput schema / properties / model_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID of the threat model.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "target boundary — \"model\", \"system\", or \"tag\".",
+  "enum": [
+    "model",
+    "system",
+    "tag"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "id of the model, system, or tag selected by ``scope``.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "server_version",
-  "model_id",
-  "framework_ids"
-]New value: +[
+  "server_version",
+  "scope",
+  "scope_id",
+  "framework_ids"
+]
  2. Addedv0.62.2
  3. Removedv0.62.1
  4. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the operation is mutating, requires PRO tier, replaces the existing selection, kicks off background auto-remediation for model scope, and propagates frameworks to member models for tag scope. It even mentions that the response includes auto_remediate_jobs and that these jobs run on their own.

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 a one-sentence summary, then groups discovery and follow-up steps, and then uses a bulleted list for the three scope behaviors. Every sentence contributes useful information and the length is justified by the genuinely different model/system/tag semantics.

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?

This is a complete definition for a mutating multi-scope tool. It covers prerequisites, id discovery, replacement behavior, per-scope side effects, follow-up tools, and a key response field. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return values in detail.

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?

The schema already covers scope, scope_id, and framework_ids at 75% coverage. The description adds substantial meaning by explaining each scope enum value and how scope_id is interpreted for model, system, and tag. It also clarifies that framework_ids are comma-separated and should come from list_compliance_frameworks. However, server_version remains undocumented in both schema and description, so a minor gap remains.

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 and resource: 'Select (activate) compliance frameworks at a chosen scope.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming related tools like list_compliance_frameworks, import_compliance_framework, and get_compliance_report, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on how to discover valid framework ids, add custom frameworks, and view the resulting gap analysis with get_compliance_report at the same scope. It also clarifies that re-calling replaces the scope's framework selection and that auto_remediate_compliance can be used to re-trigger later, covering both when and how to use the tool.

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