Skip to main content
Glama

misakanet_get_lesson

Read-onlyIdempotent

[RETRIEVAL / READ] Fetch one public MisakaNet lesson by repository path or lesson ID. Use after misakanet_search returns a promising result to pull the full fix content. Pass path or id (path wins if both are supplied); at least one is required, and the empty call returns {error, code}. path must be a lesson file (lessons//.md) — anything else is refused with code=invalid_lesson_path rather than read. Returns: object {path: string, content: string} — lesson markdown body, capped at 5000 chars per call; or {error, code}. The code says which: lesson_not_found (no such lesson — do not retry, search instead), invalid_lesson_path (the argument is not a lesson reference — fix the argument), internal_error (a service fault — retrying is reasonable). When the lesson is longer than the cap the response says so instead of pretending to be complete: {truncated: true, content_length: , content_returned: , full_content_url: } — fetch that URL when the tail matters (the cut can fall before the Verification section). Example: misakanet_get_lesson(id='auto-merge-ci-pipeline')

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "misakanet_get_lesson"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoLesson ID, usually the filename without .md, e.g. auto-merge-ci-pipeline. Either id or path is required.
pathNoLesson path relative to the repository, e.g. lessons/core/auto-merge-ci-pipeline.md — must be a file under lessons/ ending in .md (other repository files are not readable through this tool). Either path or id is required.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
errorNo
contentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds genuinely useful behavior: a 5000-char content cap, an explicit truncation payload (truncated/content_length/content_returned/full_content_url), refusal of non-lesson paths with code=invalid_lesson_path, and the empty-call {error, code} shape. It does not contradict the annotations and materially lowers the risk of the agent treating a truncated body as complete.

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 a [RETRIEVAL / READ] tag and the core action in the first sentence, then layered argument rules, return shape, error handling and an example. It is dense rather than padded, though a few clauses ("instead of pretending to be complete") are chattier than the information requires.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs for a two-parameter read tool: addressing modes and precedence, validation refusal, truncation semantics with a recovery URL, and a full error-code triage table. An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a gap-filler.

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 100% and each parameter already documents its format and the "either is required" rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description still adds one thing the schema does not: the precedence rule "path wins if both are supplied", plus the constraint that a path must be a lesson file under lessons/ ending in .md, which reframes the parameter as a validated filter rather than a free string.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one public MisakaNet lesson") plus the two addressing modes (repository path or lesson ID). It explicitly positions itself against the sibling misakanet_search ("Use after misakanet_search returns a promising result to pull the full fix content"), so an agent can route between them without opening either 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?

Gives the exact trigger for calling it (after a promising search result), the argument requirement (path or id, at least one), and negative routing guidance baked into the error codes: lesson_not_found means "do not retry, search instead", invalid_lesson_path means "fix the argument", internal_error means retrying is reasonable. That is explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-retry, and which alternative to fall back to.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.