Zephex

Zephex Developer Knowledge Base

Zephex_dev_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Expert developer playbooks — not your repo. Stripe webhooks & checkout, Supabase RLS, Next.js auth (clerk, next-auth), payment flows, CSP/HSTS, deploy patterns. operation=search finds entries by question; operation=get returns full guidance by slug from search. Read summary and checklist first. 2 credits hosted. No project path. Call when standard patterns beat guessing — wiring stripe checkout, fixing auth middleware, Supabase RLS policies, hardening after audit_headers. Use AFTER repo tools if code context is still thin. NOT for user's codebase (get_project_context, find_code, read_code), registry packages (check_package), tests (check_test), live URL (audit_headers), or saving decisions (project_memory). Example: Zephex_dev_info({ operation: 'search', query: 'Stripe webhook raw body verification', category: 'payments' }) then get with returned slug. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No	Required for get — exact slug from a search hit.
`query`	No	Required for search — e.g. 'Supabase RLS for multi-tenant' or 'Next.js middleware auth'.
`category`	No	Optional search filter — payments, auth, security, databases, etc.
`operation`	No	search=find by query (first step); get=full entry by slug from search.	search

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed4 schema fields changedJul 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / category / description

Previous value: -"Optional filter for 'search'. Narrows results to one domain."New value: +"Optional search filter — payments, auth, security, databases, etc."

changedInput schema / properties / operation / description

Previous value: -"Use 'search' to find the right entry by query. Use 'get' to fetch full expert knowledge by slug. Always search first, then get."New value: +"search=find by query (first step); get=full entry by slug from search."

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"Required for 'search'. Natural language question."New value: +"Required for search — e.g. 'Supabase RLS for multi-tenant' or 'Next.js middleware auth'."

changedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Previous value: -"Required for 'get'. Exact slug from a previous search result."New value: +"Required for get — exact slug from a search hit."

First observedJun 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, deceptiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: credit cost ('2 credits hosted'), no project path, the need to use search before get (slug must come from search), and 'Read-only' reinforces safety. No contradiction detected; it supplements annotations with operational constraints.

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?

The description is dense yet every sentence adds value: scope, operations, use cases, exclusions, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core concept ('Expert developer playbooks — not your repo') and structured logically. No filler or 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 purpose, workflow, limitations, cost, timing, and explicit exclusions. Despite no output schema, it clarifies that get returns 'full guidance by slug' and search returns entries. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly in varied scenarios.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds workflow semantics by explaining operation sequence (search first, get with returned slug) and provides a concrete usage example (Zephex_dev_info({ operation: 'search', query: 'Stripe webhook...', category: 'payments' })). This goes beyond the schema's static descriptions, earning a 4.

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 identifies the tool as 'Expert developer playbooks' with specific operations (search by query, get by slug) and scope ('not your repo'). It explicitly contrasts with repo tools and lists concrete use cases like 'wiring stripe checkout' and 'Supabase RLS policies', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Call when standard patterns beat guessing'), when-to-use-after ('Use AFTER repo tools if code context is still thin'), and a detailed NOT list naming sibling tools (get_project_context, find_code, read_code, check_package, check_test, audit_headers, project_memory). This is exemplary usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Zephex tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain: URL auditing, package checking, tests, architecture, code search, project context, planning, memory, code reading, and expert guides. Descriptions are extremely detailed and explicitly state when not to use each tool, leaving no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (audit_headers, check_package, check_test, explain_architecture, find_code, get_project_context, read_code), but project_memory (noun_noun) and Zephex_dev_info (brand_noun) deviate, and keep_thinking uses a gerund instead of a noun. The pattern is strong but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a comprehensive development assistant. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, covering security, package management, testing, code understanding, project context, planning, memory, and expert knowledge. The count is neither too few nor excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of development analysis tasks: security auditing, package checking, test running, architecture mapping, code search, project context, planning, memory, code reading, and developer guides. Minor gaps include the lack of direct code editing or project execution/build tools, but the server appears intentionally focused on read-only information and planning.

Resources

Need Help?