Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Submit Assertions

submit_assertions

Submit typed assertions to CI checks that validate controls, assumptions, and functional tests via the Mipiti platform.

Instructions

Typed claims about a control, assumption or functional test; CI checks later. get_assertion_types returns it all as data.

By class, strongest first, as name(required) [opt: optional]: [by_construction]

  • typed_boundary(scope, sinks, boundary_type, constructors, property) [opt: allowlist, wrappers] [sound_over_approximation]

  • sink_default_deny(scope, sinks, safe_forms, property) [opt: allowlist, wrappers] [existential_witness]

  • test_attested(test) [opt: env, mechanism] [under_approximating_scan]

  • pattern_matches(file, pattern) [opt: scope_start, scope_end, multiline, dotall, target]

  • pattern_absent(file, pattern) [opt: scope_start, scope_end, multiline, dotall, target]

  • no_plaintext_secret(file, patterns) [presence]

  • function_exists(file, name)

  • class_exists(file, name)

  • decorator_present(file, function, decorator)

  • function_calls(file, caller, callee)

  • import_present(file, module)

  • file_exists(file)

  • file_hash(file, algorithm, expected_hash, scope_file) [opt: scope_start, scope_end]

  • config_key_exists(file, key)

  • config_value_matches(file, key, pattern)

  • env_var_referenced(file, variable)

  • dependency_exists(manifest, package)

  • dependency_version(manifest, package, constraint)

  • parameter_validated(file, function, parameter)

  • error_handled(file, function)

  • middleware_registered(file, middleware)

  • http_header_set(file, header)

  • test_exists(pattern)

  • module_exists(file, name)

  • module_instantiated(file, parent, child)

  • port_exists(file, module, port) [opt: direction]

  • parameter_defined(file, parameter) [opt: module, pattern]

  • signal_exists(file, name) [opt: module, kind]

  • sva_assertion_present(file, name)

  • register_reset(file, signal) [opt: reset]

Each: type, params, description, repo ("/" or "no_repo"), covers beside them, never in params: the CO-NN or cls_ ids proved. A for-all clause takes only typed_boundary (sinks accept one boundary type) or, when they do not, sink_default_deny, bound with covers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYes
control_idNo
assumption_idNo
server_versionYes
assertions_jsonYes
functional_test_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.84.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / functional_test_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}
  2. Addedv0.62.2
  3. Removedv0.62.0
  4. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that submission is a mutation, whether it requires a control/assumption/functional_test anchor, whether it is idempotent, what happens on invalid assertion_json, or what the output schema returns. The one behavioral note ('CI checks later') is vague and non-actionable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The body is a long undifferentiated list of 30+ assertion types occupying most of the text, with the tool's actual purpose reduced to a single fragment. Structure is flat, poorly front-loaded, and buries the actionable information about required parameters and anchoring.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a 6-param mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description should explain anchoring (control_id/assumption_id/functional_test_id), the assertions_json payload format, and server_version. None of this is covered; the type taxonomy, however useful, does not substitute for tool-contract information.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It documents assertion-internal fields (scope, sinks, property, etc.) that are not input parameters, while model_id, server_version, assertions_json, control_id, assumption_id, and functional_test_id are never explained. The 'covers' rule is the only hint about anchoring, and it is cryptic.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a fragment ('Typed claims about a control, assumption or functional test; CI checks later') that gestures at purpose but never states a clear verb+resource like 'submit typed assertions for a model'. It spends most of its length on a taxonomy of assertion types rather than what the tool does. An agent must infer that this tool ingests/submits assertions.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is a single routing hint to get_assertion_types ('returns it all as data'), which is a sibling-lookup pointer rather than when-to-use-this-tool guidance. No statement of when to submit vs. list_assertions, delete_assertion, or submit_findings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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