MisakaNet

misakanet_preflight

Read-onlyIdempotent

[GUARD / RISK CHECK] Check risk level before executing high-risk operations. Matches agent intent against lesson triggers to provide proactive warnings. Use before RAG builds, WSL/GPU tasks, bulk imports, or any operation that might fail. No side effects — safe to call multiple times before acting. Returns: object {risk_level: 'low'|'medium'|'high', intent, matched_lessons: [{id, title, domain, relevance}], guards: [string]}. Example: misakanet_preflight(intent='build RAG pipeline with ChromaDB')

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`intent`	Yes	Required: what you plan to do (e.g. 'build RAG pipeline with ChromaDB').
`context`	No	Optional: additional context about the environment or setup.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`guards`	No
`intent`	No
`risk_level`	No
`matched_lessons`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "guards": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "intent": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "matched_lessons": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "domain": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "relevance": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "risk_level": {
+      "enum": [
+        "low",
+        "medium",
+        "high"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'No side effects — safe to call multiple times.' It adds the behavioral detail that it matches intent against lesson triggers and returns a structured risk assessment, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, use cases, side-effect note, return shape, and example are each covered in one or two sentences with no filler. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: when to call it, its return object, and an example. No critical operational detail 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a concrete example of the intent parameter, but it does not materially expand on the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with '[GUARD / RISK CHECK]' and states a specific verb and resource: it checks risk level before high-risk operations and matches agent intent against lesson triggers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like misakanet_search or misakanet_write_lesson, which have different purposes.

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?

It gives explicit use-before scenarios ('RAG builds, WSL/GPU tasks, bulk imports, or any operation that might fail') and says it is safe to call multiple times. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, 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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: retrieval (search/get_lesson), submission (submit_intake/write_lesson), evidence (me_events), risk preflight, and registration. The two submission tools are carefully differentiated by structure and auth requirements, so an agent should not confuse them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the misakanet_ prefix and snake_case style, and most use a verb_noun pattern. Minor deviations like search, register, preflight, and me_events break the pattern slightly, but the names remain readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a failure-lesson registry: one onboarding tool, one guardrail, two read paths, two submission paths, and one evidence-check tool. No tool feels redundant or missing at a coarse level.

Completeness5/5

The lifecycle is covered end-to-end: register for access, search and get lessons, submit either partial intakes or structured lessons, preflight risky actions, and check reuse evidence. Update/delete are intentionally absent because lessons are immutable, and corrections route through intake, so there are no dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?