Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by com.moxiedocs

moxie.list_docs

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the repository's generated documentation as a browsable table of contents - every doc page, not a query-filtered subset. Read-only; no side effects. Returns Markdown grouped by section, each entry with its title, slug, repository path, and source paths, plus the total count and a pagination cursor so you can tell whether more pages remain (no silent truncation). Use this to see what docs already exist before adding one (so you don't duplicate) or to find the slug to pass to propose_doc_update; when you are hunting for a specific topic, search_docs is more direct.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum docs to return (1-200, default 50).
offsetNoNumber of docs to skip for pagination (default 0). Use the cursor in the response to fetch the next page.
sectionNoOptional section/collection filter (case-insensitive substring), e.g. "Backend" or "Billing". Omit to list every section.
repositoryNoThe target repository as "owner/name" (e.g. "acme/app"). Always pass this unless your token is scoped to a single repository. Matching is case-insensitive. If omitted when the token serves multiple repos, the call returns the list of repositories to choose from instead of an answer.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, the description adds beyond them: it discloses the return format (Markdown grouped by section), fields included (title, slug, repository path, source paths), total count and pagination cursor, and explicitly promises no silent truncation. This is rich, annotation-complementing transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then safety, then return details, then usage guidance. It is three sentences, each earning its place, no fluff or repetition of schema field names that are already self-explanatory.

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?

Given 4 optional params, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key operational behaviors: read-only guarantee, return structure, pagination honesty, repository fallback behavior, and when to use it versus siblings. It is complete for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning beyond the schema: it explains the repository fallback behavior (returns repository list when omitted with multi-repo tokens) and mentions the cursor in the response for pagination. It doesn't elaborate on section filter syntax beyond what the schema gives, but the added behavior notes justify a 4.

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 ('List') and resource ('repository's generated documentation'), and explicitly contrasts with a 'query-filtered subset' and sibling tool search_docs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as a full table of contents.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use before adding a doc to avoid duplication, and to find slugs for propose_doc_update. It also states that search_docs is more direct for topic hunting, naming the alternative explicitly. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Moxie Docs toolsInspect
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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct by scope and intent, but get_doc_gaps overlaps with get_documentation_opportunities as a subset, and get_ai_context partially overlaps with conventions and gaps. The descriptions explicitly clarify these relationships, so an agent can usually pick correctly.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a clear verb-prefixed snake_case pattern: get_, list_, propose_, review_, and search_. The naming is uniform and predictable across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well within the ideal range for a documentation-assistant server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow: discovery, context, targeted impact, proposals, and review.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full docs workflow: browse and search docs, retrieve conventions/gaps/opportunities, get location guidance, propose updates/removals, and review changes before commit. There are no obvious dead ends for the server's stated purpose.

Resources