Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by com.moxiedocs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

moxie.review_change

Read-onlyIdempotent

Self-review a change you are about to commit BEFORE opening the PR. Pass the proposed new state of each changed file (and any deleted paths); Moxie Docs returns a severity-ranked list of violations to fix: convention breaches, docs your change makes factually false, net-new API/surface added without docs, and doc references broken by deletions. Read-only; no side effects and no writes. Returns a Markdown verdict (clean | warnings | must-fix) with each finding's location, fix, and - for doc issues - the slug to pass to propose_doc_update. Call this as the final step of the edit flow, then fix findings and re-run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
changedFilesYesThe files your change adds or modifies, in their PROPOSED new state. Provide newContent (the full new file text) for each; you may also/instead provide patch (a unified diff). Max 20 files per call.
deletedPathsNoRepository-relative paths your change DELETES, so Moxie Docs can flag docs whose references break.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / deletedPaths / description
      Previous value: -"Repository-relative paths your change DELETES, so Moxie can flag docs whose references break."New value: +"Repository-relative paths your change DELETES, so Moxie Docs can flag docs whose references break."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds real value beyond them: the output shape (Markdown verdict of clean | warnings | must-fix), the per-finding structure (location, fix, doc slug), and the classification of findings by severity. It doesn't mention the 20-file cap or performance/rate characteristics, which keeps it short of 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?

Well front-loaded: the trigger (before PR) and the required input lead, then the return contract and next step follow. The second sentence is long with several stacked clauses, but every clause carries distinct information rather than 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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering return values, the description carries that burden and does so: it specifies the verdict values, the per-finding fields, and the handoff slug for propose_doc_update. Combined with the explicit call-site ordering, an agent has everything needed to invoke and act on this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents repository, changedFiles (path/patch/status/newContent), and deletedPaths in detail. The description reinforces the intent ('proposed new state of each changed file (and any deleted paths)') but adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Self-review a change you are about to commit BEFORE opening the PR') and enumerates exactly what it detects: convention breaches, docs made false, undocumented net-new API surface, and broken references. It clearly differentiates from siblings by routing doc fixes onward to propose_doc_update rather than doing them itself.

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?

It states the exact timing ('Call this as the final step of the edit flow, then fix findings and re-run') and the triggering condition ('BEFORE opening the PR'), and it names the downstream alternative (propose_doc_update) with the artifact to hand it. Nothing about when to pick this over get_doc_impact or get_conventions is left to inference.

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
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources