MisakaNet

misakanet_write_lesson

[STRUCTURED COMMIT / VALIDATED SUBMISSION] Submit a complete, structured failure lesson (title/domain/problem/root_cause/fix) as a formal submission. Requires authentication (Bearer token in header) — this is the 'validated author' path, not open triage. Output goes through lesson-gate/lint/review and becomes a versioned lesson in the git repo. For quick open reports when you only have a partial failure description, use misakanet_submit_intake instead (no Bearer). Lessons are immutable once merged — corrections go through a new intake/PR, so there is intentionally no misakanet_update_lesson/misakanet_delete_lesson. Returns: object {lesson_id: string, status: 'pending_review', quality_score: number}; or {submitted: false, error}. Example: misakanet_write_lesson(title='pip timeout behind proxy', domain='python', problem='...', root_cause='...', fix='...')

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fix`	Yes	How to fix it (required).
`tags`	No	Comma-separated tags.
`title`	Yes	Short descriptive title.
`domain`	Yes	Domain: devops, python, network, feishu, rag, fanuc, mcp, etc.
`source`	No	Source: codex, claude-code, cursor, etc.
`problem`	Yes	What failed (required).
`root_cause`	Yes	Why it failed (required).
`contributor`	No	Optional: contributor identity (GitHub username, agent name, or email). Included in lesson frontmatter for attribution.
`verification`	No	How to confirm the fix works.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`status`	No
`lesson_id`	No
`submitted`	No
`quality_score`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contributor

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: contributor identity (GitHub username, agent name, or email). Included in lesson frontmatter for attribution.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "lesson_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "quality_score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "submitted": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it requires authentication, routes through lesson-gate/lint/review, persists as a versioned git lesson, and becomes immutable once merged. It also documents the return shape including error format, which is valuable for agent expectations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: structured labeling, auth requirements, alternative routing, immutability policy, return type, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and spends no words on filler.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, 5 required fields, an output schema, and sibling alternatives, this description is complete. It covers auth, validation pipeline, immutability, correction workflow, return values, and the intended alternative route. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description names the five required fields and provides a realistic example call, but does not add deeper meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. This is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a complete, structured failure lesson ... as a formal submission.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling misakanet_submit_intake, and explains there is intentionally no update/delete sibling because lessons are immutable once merged. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: use this for validated, complete submissions requiring a Bearer token, and use misakanet_submit_intake instead for quick open reports with partial failure descriptions. The description also prescribes how corrections should be handled (new intake/PR) rather than using this tool again.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?