Skip to main content
Glama

Moxie Docs

by io.github.Jackalope-Dev

moxie.propose_doc_update

Propose a documentation file to add or update as part of YOUR current change. Records a new proposal each call (not idempotent) and does NOT modify your repository or open a PR - Moxie resolves the target path and returns the path + Markdown for YOU to write into your working branch, so the docs land in the SAME PR as the code. Returns the resolved target path and the content to write. Provide either targetPath or baseSlug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesShort human title for the documentation update.
reasonNoWhy this doc is being added or changed.
baseSlugNoSlug of an existing generated doc to update instead of supplying targetPath.
markdownYesThe documentation content (Markdown) to write to the target file.
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 to write the doc to (e.g., docs/billing.md). Omit to resolve from baseSlug.
sourcePathsNoCode paths this doc documents, for provenance.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating it is not idempotent, does not modify the repo or open a PR, and returns content to write. This discloses side effects clearly, aligning with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false.

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?

One dense paragraph, but front-loaded with purpose and includes essential behavior. Could be broken into bullets but is not overly verbose or repetitive. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly mentions it 'Returns the resolved target path and the content to write', covers the non-idempotent nature, and explains the repository omission behavior. Sufficient for the agent to use it correctly.

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?

Schema covers all 7 parameters at 100%, but the description adds crucial semantics: 'Provide either targetPath or baseSlug' clarifies the mutual exclusivity not present in the schema. It also echoes repository behavior, but that's already in the schema.

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 tool proposes a documentation file to add or update, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT modify the repository or open a PR, contrasting with propose_doc_removal and read-only get tools.

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?

The description gives clear context: use as part of the current change to add or update docs in the same PR. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the 'does NOT modify...' phrasing implies when it's appropriate. The repository parameter guidance further clarifies usage conditions.

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