Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by io.github.Jackalope-Dev

moxie.get_doc_impact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Given the file paths an agent is about to change (and optionally a subset being deleted), return the conventions, documentation gaps, and existing/related docs whose evidence overlaps those paths, plus a net-new/undocumented analysis and any removal candidates. Read-only; no side effects. Returns a Markdown report. Call this BEFORE writing code so doc updates land in the same PR; then use propose_doc_update to write a doc, or propose_doc_removal for an orphaned one.

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.
changedPathsYesRepository-relative file paths the agent intends to modify (e.g., apps/web/src/app/api/billing/webhook/route.ts).
deletedPathsNoSubset of paths that are being DELETED. Moxie flags any doc whose every cited source path is in this list as a removal candidate for moxie.propose_doc_removal.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide read-only and idempotent hints; description reinforces with 'Read-only; no side effects.' Adds value by specifying return type ('Markdown report') and content, going beyond 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose in listing report contents, but each element adds clarity. Could be tightened, but structure is logical and scannable.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately enumerates report sections (conventions, gaps, related docs, net-new analysis, removal candidates). Sufficient for a complex tool with multiple siblings.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds minimal new information beyond rephrasing ('file paths an agent is about to change' vs schema's 'intends to modify'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool analyzes file paths to return conventions, documentation gaps, related docs, net-new/undocumented analysis, and removal candidates. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'before writing code' and directing to propose_doc_update/removal.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call ('BEFORE writing code') and provides workflow context with alternatives ('then use propose_doc_update... or propose_doc_removal'). Gives clear contextual usage.

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