Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by io.github.Jackalope-Dev

moxie.propose_doc_removal

Propose deleting a Moxie-tracked documentation file that your change makes irrelevant, as part of YOUR current change. Moxie validates the path and returns it for you to delete in your working branch; Moxie itself does not delete files or open a PR - the deletion happens in your branch, so it lands in the SAME PR as the code. Returns the resolved path to delete. Provide either slug or targetPath.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNoSlug of the existing generated doc to remove.
reasonNoWhy this doc is no longer relevant.
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.
targetPathNoRepository-relative path of the doc to remove (must be a Moxie-tracked doc). Use instead of slug.
removedSourcePathsNoCode paths being deleted that made this doc irrelevant, for provenance.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false), the description explicitly states that Moxie does not delete files or open a PR, and that the deletion happens in the user's branch. This clarifies the non-destructive nature and the return of a resolved path, which is more detailed than annotations alone.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately state the key caveat (no actual deletion). Every sentence adds unique information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the workflow, side effects, return value, and parameter alternatives. With no output schema, it mentions the return type. The schema handles individual parameter details, making the description complete for selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds the important either/or relationship between slug and targetPath, which is not in the schema and guides parameter selection.

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 specific action: propose deleting a Moxie-tracked documentation file made irrelevant by the current change. It distinguishes itself from siblings like propose_doc_update (update vs removal) and the read-only get_* tools by emphasizing the proposal and deletion context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly indicates when to use: when your change makes a doc irrelevant and you want the deletion to land in the same PR. It implicitly contrasts with propose_doc_update, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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