Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by io.github.Jackalope-Dev

moxie.list_docs

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the repository's generated documentation as a browsable table of contents - every doc page, not a query-filtered subset. Read-only; no side effects. Returns Markdown grouped by section, each entry with its title, slug, repository path, and source paths, plus the total count and a pagination cursor so you can tell whether more pages remain (no silent truncation). Use this to see what docs already exist before adding one (so you don't duplicate) or to find the slug to pass to propose_doc_update; when you are hunting for a specific topic, search_docs is more direct.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum docs to return (1-200, default 50).
offsetNoNumber of docs to skip for pagination (default 0). Use the cursor in the response to fetch the next page.
sectionNoOptional section/collection filter (case-insensitive substring), e.g. "Backend" or "Billing". Omit to list every section.
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description discloses read-only nature, no side effects, pagination behavior (no silent truncation), and return format (Markdown grouped by section, entries, count, cursor). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so description adds value by explaining return format and pagination guarantee.

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?

Description is a single sentence block, but it's dense and informative. It front-loads the purpose, then adds behavior, return details, and usage guidance. Slightly long but each phrase contributes value; no waste.

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 4 optional params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, return structure, pagination, and when to use it. It could mention whether result is sorted or how sections are defined, but it's complete enough for a listing tool.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. Description adds a bit of context for repository (multi-repo behavior) and section, but params are already well-explained in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; description does not add significant new meaning beyond what schema provides, though it reiterates pagination cursor.

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?

Purpose is explicit: 'List the repository's generated documentation as a browsable table of contents' — specific verb (list) + resource (generated documentation) + scope (every doc page, not query-filtered). Clearly distinguishes from search_docs and propose_doc_update.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to see what docs already exist before adding one... or to find the slug to pass to propose_doc_update; when you are hunting for a specific topic, search_docs is more direct.' This tells when to use and when not to use, naming alternatives.

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