Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by io.github.Jackalope-Dev

moxie.get_conventions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the coding conventions Moxie inferred for the repository. Read-only; no side effects. Returns a Markdown list grouped by category (e.g. testing, structure, docs, review); each convention has a title, summary, confidence score, agent guidance, and the source file paths that evidence it. Use this for the general rules to follow; when you already know the files you're about to edit, prefer moxie.get_doc_impact for conventions scoped to those paths.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNoOptional category filter, such as testing, structure, docs, or review.
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses read-only, no-side-effects behavior, the full return shape (Markdown list grouped by category, with title, summary, confidence score, agent guidance, and evidence file paths), and the fallback behavior when repository is omitted. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: it states the verb and resource first, then safety, return format, and usage guidance in a few sentences. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of structured fields.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, how results are structured, and what each convention item contains. It also covers when to use it versus alternatives and the repository-omission behavior, making the tool feel complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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 thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning example categories and the multi-repository fallback behavior, but it does not substantially extend parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the coding conventions Moxie inferred for the repository.' It then explains the output format and explicitly distinguishes this tool from moxie.get_doc_impact, making the purpose unambiguous and well differentiated from siblings.

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 guidance: 'Use this for the general rules to follow; when you already know the files you're about to edit, prefer moxie.get_doc_impact...' This clearly states when to use the tool and when to choose an alternative. It also provides practical invocation guidance about the repository parameter behavior.

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