MisakaNet

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')

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 7, 2026

removedInput schema / minProperties
```
Removed value: -1
```

addedInput schema / oneOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "lesson_id"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "lesson_path"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "lesson_id",
+      "lesson_path"
+    ]
+  }
+]

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 3, 2026

addedInput schema / minProperties
```
Added value: +1
```

changedInput schema / properties / lesson_id / description

Previous value: -"Lesson ID (filename stem), e.g. dco-auto-fix-workflow."New value: +"Lesson ID (filename stem), e.g. dco-auto-fix-workflow. Either lesson_id or lesson_path is required."

changedInput schema / properties / lesson_path / description

Previous value: -"Optional full path, e.g. lessons/core/dco-auto-fix-workflow.md."New value: +"Optional full path, e.g. lessons/core/dco-auto-fix-workflow.md. Either lesson_id or lesson_path is required."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "events": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "count": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "evidence_level": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "queries": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "sources": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "evidence": {
+      "enum": [
+        "E0",
+        "E3",
+        "E4"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "lesson_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds traits not in them: no auth required, rate-limited, explicit {error} response when neither lesson_id nor lesson_path is given, and the E0/E3/E4 output levels. The return-shape paragraph is partially redundant with the existing output schema, which keeps this from a 5.

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 [READ-ONLY EVIDENCE] tag and the core purpose in the first sentence, and most of the length is load-bearing E4/E3 definition rather than filler. The return-shape sentence duplicates the output schema and the backward-compatibility aside is a minor detour, but overall the structure is disciplined for the amount of semantics it must carry.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it does cover the genuinely important gaps: the parameter-required error case, no-auth/rate-limit behavior, and the evidence-level semantics that an agent cannot infer from the schema. The remaining unanswered question is how a lesson_id resolves against a lesson_path, which is a small gap for a two-parameter lookup.

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 100% and both parameters are documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the invocation rule already implied by the schema's oneOf ('Provide lesson_id or lesson_path') plus an example; it contributes no format, resolution-order, or precedence detail (e.g. what happens if both are supplied).

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 lesson reuse — and goes further by defining exactly what qualifies as E4 (two or more distinct clients retrieved the lesson) versus E3 hints (citations, votes, provenance lines). It differentiates itself from its own alias ('misakanet_get_my_events') but never explicitly contrasts with siblings like misakanet_get_lesson or misakanet_search, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use to check whether a lesson is proven by real usage, not just self-reported' gives a clear selection criterion against other evidence-gathering paths. It does not name an explicit alternative tool to call for weaker/sandbox-level evidence, but the E3-vs-E4 boundary effectively tells the agent when this tool applies and when it does not.

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

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?