Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Select Compliance Frameworks

select_compliance_frameworks

Activate compliance frameworks at model or tag scope; requires PRO tier and triggers gap analysis plus auto-remediation mapping.

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.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYestarget boundary — "model" or "tag".
scope_idYesid of the model 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. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.85.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"target boundary — \"model\", \"system\", or \"tag\"."New value: +"target boundary — \"model\" or \"tag\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "model",
-  "system",
-  "tag"
-]New value: +[
+  "model",
+  "tag"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope_id / description
      Previous value: -"id of the model, system, or tag selected by ``scope``."New value: +"id of the model or tag selected by ``scope``."
  2. 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"
+]
  3. Addedv0.62.2
  4. Removedv0.62.1
  5. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
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 delivers: it flags this as mutating, requires PRO tier, warns that re-calling replaces the scope's selection, and details that 'model' scope kicks off background auto-remediation jobs while 'tag' scope propagates to member and future models. This is rich behavioral context beyond what any schema field would convey.

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?

Purpose, alternatives, and scope semantics are front-loaded and organized with a bulleted breakdown, so the structure aids scanning. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence adds operational information.

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?

For a mutating, 4-param tool, the description covers prerequisites (PRO tier), scope semantics, side effects, and follow-up routes, and the existence of an output schema means return values needn't be detailed. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 75%, and the description meaningfully extends it by explaining how scope_id is read under each scope value and the side effects of each ('model' vs 'tag'). It adds real semantic depth over the enum, though framework_ids format is left mostly to 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Select (activate) compliance frameworks') with explicit scope, and distinguishes itself from siblings list_compliance_frameworks, import_compliance_framework, auto_remediate_compliance, and get_compliance_report by name. An agent can tell this tool apart from its neighbors without opening any 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?

It names the alternatives and the conditions selecting them: use list_compliance_frameworks to discover ids, import_compliance_framework for custom ones, get_compliance_report to view results at the same scope, and auto_remediate_compliance to re-trigger. It also notes PRO tier requirement and that re-calling replaces the existing selection.

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