Mipiti MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set Threat Model Parent

set_threat_model_parent

Set or clear a threat model's parent to place it under a shared-services ancestor or re-root it after a re-org. Enforces tree-depth and cycle limits, then bumps the model version.

Instructions

Set (or clear) a model's parent on the recursive composition tree.

The composition substrate (Layer 0) builds an ancestor chain from each model's parent_id so child models inherit topology, control objectives, and other entities from their ancestors. Use this tool when wiring a child model under a platform / system / shared-services ancestor, or when re-rooting a model after a re-org.

Pass parent_id=None to clear the parent (the model becomes a tree root). The server rejects cycles (you cannot make a descendant your parent) and over-deep chains (depth bounded by the platform's configured maximum tree depth) with HTTP 400. Bumps the model version on success.

Returns the updated threat model.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model_id`	Yes	ID of the threat model whose parent is being set.
`parent_id`	Yes	ID of the new parent model, or ``None`` to clear.
`server_version`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.57.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that children inherit topology/control objectives/entities, that None makes the model a tree root, that cycles and over-deep chains yield HTTP 400, and that the model version bumps. That is strong behavioral transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

Despite its length, the description is structured and economical: action first, then background, usage, edge behavior, failure modes, and return. Every sentence carries information, with no filler.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the operation's effect, failure cases, and side effects, especially with an output schema present. The main gap is the unexplained server_version parameter, which keeps it from being fully self-contained.

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?

parent_id is explained beyond the schema by tying None to tree-root behavior and by describing cycle/depth rejection; model_id's role is clear. However, server_version is required yet gets no schema or prose explanation, so the parameter semantics are not fully complete.

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-resource pair, 'Set (or clear) a model's parent on the recursive composition tree,' and distinguishes the tool from sibling composition operations by focusing on ancestor wiring and re-rooting. This makes the tool's identity unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit scenarios: wiring a child under a platform/system/shared-services ancestor, or re-rooting after a re-org. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server