Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti
by Mipiti

Update Threat Model

update_threat_model

Rename a threat model, set or clear its parent in the composition tree, or record where its description came from. Applies changes in order and reports each applied update.

Instructions

Change a threat model's metadata: its name, its parent, where its description came from. Mutating; pass only what changes.

  • name (1-120 chars) renames it; no new version. Titles are unique within a workspace, case-insensitive (409 on a clash).

  • parent_id wires it under a parent on the recursive composition tree, so it inherits the parent's topology and objectives; clear_parent=True makes it a tree root. Cycles (409) and chains past the platform's maximum depth (400) are refused. No new version.

  • provenance_kind (code, ticket, document, manual, mixed) records where the description came from, with the other provenance_* values. code with provenance_commit_sha means the code is authoritative and the model follows it (reconcile_model measures it against the code); any other kind means the description is intent and the code is measured against it. Bumps the model version.

Changes apply in that order. Returns {model_id, name?, parent?, provenance?}, one entry per change applied. A failure raises and names the changes already applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
model_idYes
parent_idNo
clear_parentNo
provenance_refNo
server_versionYes
provenance_kindNo
provenance_repo_urlNo
provenance_commit_shaNo
provenance_source_refNo
provenance_source_urlNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.84.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses conflict codes (409 on name clash/cycle, 400 on max depth), which changes bump the model version versus which do not, the fixed application order of changes, and the partial-failure contract ('a failure raises and names the changes already applied'). That is unusually rich mutation semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the 'pass only what changes' rule, then bulleted per-parameter detail that earns its length. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long for an agent skimming many tools.

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?

For a mutating, 11-param tool with no annotations, it covers ordering, error codes, version effects and failure reporting, and even restates the return shape despite an output schema existing. Missing pieces are the required server_version semantics and any auth/permission prerequisites.

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 0% across 11 params, yet the description explains name constraints, parent_id/clear_parent semantics, the provenance_kind enum values, and the meaning of provenance_commit_sha and the 'other provenance_* values'. The two required params, model_id and especially server_version (apparently a concurrency token), are left undocumented, which is the remaining gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource and narrows scope precisely to metadata (name, parent, provenance), with each field's effect spelled out. However it never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. refine_threat_model or delete_threat_model), leaving the agent to infer which tool owns content-level changes versus metadata.

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?

'Mutating; pass only what changes' gives clear partial-update guidance, and per-field conditions (clear_parent=True to root, provenance_kind=code to make code authoritative) tell the agent when each argument is appropriate. Still no explicit when-to-use-this vs. the sibling refine/delete/undo tools.

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