misakanet

by io.github.Ikalus1988

misakanet_me_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

[READ-ONLY EVIDENCE] Return evidence of a lesson being reused. E4 is observed reuse: search_signals shows two or more distinct clients actually retrieved the lesson — a count of requests, never of prose. Regression-benchmark citations, helpful votes and a lesson's own verified by: line are E3 hints: a citation is sandbox-level evidence, a vote is one person's opinion, and a provenance line is the lesson talking about itself, so none of them can confer E4. Use to check whether a lesson is proven by real usage, not just self-reported. Provide lesson_id or lesson_path — if neither is supplied the tool returns {error}. Semantically 'misakanet_get_my_events' (evidence for the lessons your node submitted/used); kept as me_events for backward compatibility. No auth required (read-only, rate-limited). Returns: object {lesson_id, events: [{type, count|queries|sources, evidence_level}], evidence: 'E0'|'E3'|'E4', note}. Example: misakanet_me_events(lesson_id='dco-auto-fix-workflow')

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_me_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lesson_id`	No	Lesson ID (filename stem), e.g. dco-auto-fix-workflow. Either lesson_id or lesson_path is required.
`lesson_path`	No	Optional full path, e.g. lessons/core/dco-auto-fix-workflow.md. Either lesson_id or lesson_path is required.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`error`	No
`events`	No
`evidence`	No
`lesson_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the failure mode ('if neither is supplied the tool returns {error}'), the auth posture ('No auth required'), and a rate-limit caveat that annotations do not convey. The 'read-only' framing duplicates readOnlyHint, but the error and rate-limit details are genuine additions.

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?

Purpose and the E4-vs-E3 distinction are front-loaded, and the operational notes (params, auth, returns, example) follow logically. The backward-compatibility naming aside about misakanet_get_my_events is the one paragraph that does little work for an agent choosing between tools.

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 invocation constraints, error case, auth and rate limits, and argument example; an output schema exists, so the restated return shape is bonus rather than necessity. Nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the cross-parameter constraint ('Provide lesson_id or lesson_path') plus a worked call example that shows the typical argument shape. It does not explain path-vs-id precedence or what happens if both are given.

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 ('Return evidence of a lesson being reused') and defines the concrete criterion (E4 = two or more distinct clients actually retrieved the lesson). It distinguishes itself conceptually via the E3/E4 evidence ladder, though it never contrasts itself directly with siblings like misakanet_get_lesson or misakanet_search.

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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: 'Use to check whether a lesson is proven by real usage, not just self-reported,' and enumerates what does NOT count (citations, votes, provenance lines). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use / use X instead' clause naming a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All misakanet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.