Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

Submit Assertions

submit_assertions

Submit typed security assertions for controls and assumptions to Mipiti for later CI verification.

Instructions

Typed claims about a control or an assumption; CI checks them later, not now. 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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.62.2
  2. Removedv0.62.0
  3. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key behavior: CI checks assertions later rather than immediately. It also reveals structural constraints such as covers being separate from params and for-all clauses being restricted to specific assertion types. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the async behavior is the most important disclosure.

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 purpose and then provides a well-organized catalog of assertion types grouped by class. The length is justified by the number of supported assertion types, and each section adds operational information without filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The assertion vocabulary and encoding constraints are covered very thoroughly, but the top-level parameters are undocumented and no example JSON is provided. It is also unclear whether control_id or assumption_id is required or how they relate to each other, which is a notable gap given the 0% schema description coverage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds substantial meaning for assertions_json by enumerating the accepted assertion types and their parameters, but it leaves server_version, model_id, and the relationship between control_id and assumption_id unexplained. The compensation is partial.

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 the tool submits typed claims about a control or an assumption and that CI checks them later. It also points to get_assertion_types as the source for the full data, which distinguishes this submission tool from a read-oriented sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives context ('CI checks them later, not now') and references get_assertion_types, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over submit_findings, submit_attestation, or submit_functional_test_assertions. Usage conditions are implied rather than clearly stated.

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