Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by io.github.Jackalope-Dev

moxie.get_api_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Given file paths an agent is about to touch, return structured context for any API endpoints they map to: method, path, request/response schema, and known consumers/features. Read-only; no side effects. Call this before editing API route or schema code, alongside get_doc_impact.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsNoRepository-relative file paths to inspect for API endpoint context.
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no side effects' and adds behavioral context about mapping file paths to endpoints and what is returned. It does not contradict annotations, and it explains the tool's role in an edit workflow, which goes beyond the annotation flags.

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 tight: two sentences cover purpose, output, safety, and usage. Each clause earns its place, with the main purpose front-loaded and no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description fills the gap by listing the output components (method, path, request/response schema, consumers/features). It also covers when-to-call and safety. However, it does not specify behavior for edge cases like no matching endpoints or invalid paths, which would make it fully complete.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds context that paths are for files the agent is 'about to touch', but this is minor semantic enrichment beyond the schema's own descriptions. No additional format or syntax details are provided.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('return structured context') and resource ('API endpoints') mapped from file paths, with concrete output details (method, path, schema, consumers/features). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on API endpoint context, not general AI or documentation.

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Call this before editing API route or schema code, alongside get_doc_impact.' It names a complementary sibling tool but does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool comparisons. Clear context, but not exhaustive exclusions.

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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among the documentation-intelligence getters (get_doc_gaps vs get_documentation_opportunities vs get_doc_impact vs get_documentation_patterns). The descriptions do a good job differentiating them, and the scoping differences are explicit.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for read-only context, propose_* for doc changes, plus list_docs, search_docs, and review_change. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool covers a distinct aspect of the documentation workflow. The count feels comprehensive without being bloated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core lifecycle: discovering docs, gaps, opportunities, patterns, proposing updates/removals, and reviewing changes. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to fetch the full content of an existing doc (list_docs gives metadata, search_docs returns snippets), but this can be worked around.

Resources