Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by io.github.Jackalope-Dev

moxie.get_doc_gaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the unresolved documentation gaps Moxie found - areas of the codebase that lack docs. Read-only; no side effects. Returns a Markdown list, each gap with a title, severity, summary, and suggested file paths. This is gaps only; for the full prioritized work queue that also includes drift repairs and PR-template work, use get_documentation_opportunities, and to scope gaps to files you're about to edit use get_doc_impact.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
severityNoOptional severity filter: high, medium, low, or info.
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 explicitly mentions 'Read-only; no side effects,' and details the output format ('Returns a Markdown list...'). It also notes the limitation that only gaps are included. This goes beyond the annotations (which already indicate read-only) by adding behavior specifics, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 concise yet comprehensive, using two sentences to convey the purpose, output, and distinctions from related tools. It avoids redundancy and is well-organized.

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 the tool's complexity (with alternative tools and conditional parameter behavior), the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, when to use alternatives, and how parameters affect behavior. No critical information 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?

The schema descriptions for both parameters are extensive (severity filter and repository with detailed instructions). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies since coverage is 100%.

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 that the tool lists unresolved documentation gaps found by Moxie, with specific details about the output (title, severity, suggested file paths) and distinguishes it from related tools by explicitly stating 'gaps only' and recommending alternatives for other scopes.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'for the full prioritized work queue... use get_documentation_opportunities' and 'to scope gaps to files... use get_doc_impact.' It also outlines parameter behavior (e.g., repository omission returns a list of repositories) and notes the read-only nature.

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