Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by io.github.Jackalope-Dev

moxie.get_documentation_patterns

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Moxie's summary of how THIS repository organizes and maintains documentation - where docs live relative to code and how they are kept current. Read-only; no side effects. Returns a Markdown list of pattern entries, each with a title, explanation, and source citations. Use this to decide WHERE a new doc should go before calling propose_doc_update; for the list of WHICH docs need work, use get_documentation_opportunities instead.

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read-only; no side effects' reinforcing annotations, and goes beyond by specifying the return format (Markdown list of pattern entries) and the edge-case behavior when repository is omitted (returns list of repos). This adds value 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, then side effects, then usage guidance and alternative. No fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and how to choose alternatives. The return format is described, so it's complete for the agent to decide when to call.

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% and the schema already explains the 'repository' parameter thoroughly (when to omit, result of omission, case-insensitivity). The description adds no new parameter details, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('Moxie's summary of documentation patterns') and explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming get_documentation_opportunities for a different purpose. It says exactly what it returns: a list of pattern entries with title, explanation, and citations.

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 states when to use ('before calling propose_doc_update') and when not to ('for the list of WHICH docs need work, use get_documentation_opportunities instead'). This directly addresses tool selection and is very clear.

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