Doxa MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates what the tool produces (short, screenshot-shareable response), the source content (Berean Standard Bible), the tagging scheme (nine movements), and important constraints (no anthropomorphism, no AI companion framing). This goes beyond the schema to explain the tool's style and boundaries, which is highly valuable for correct invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase earns its place. It packs in the purpose, output format, scriptural basis, tagging scheme, and style exclusions without redundancy. This is a model of concise, information-dense tool documentation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct use: what input is needed (situation), what output to expect (short, screenshot-shareable, Scripture-anchored), and what constraints apply (no anthropomorphism). The two-parameter schema is simple, and the description fills the gaps well, leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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

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

The schema already covers both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the output is tagged to one of the nine movements, which reinforces the purpose of the 'movement' parameter. It also implies that 'situation' is the core input for generating the encouragement. The added context is helpful but not extensive; still, it slightly exceeds the schema-only baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with the specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the exact resource: Christian encouragement in the Doxa voice, tailored to the user's situation. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the Scripture anchor (BSB) and the nine-movement tagging, making it clear this is the encouragement generator rather than a Scripture lookup or movement explainer.

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

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

The description states the intended use case ('for the situation a user describes') and the output characteristics (screenshot-shareable, Scripture-anchored). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool. The sibling names independently hint at alternatives, but the description itself could be more explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default translation (BSB), the return of Scripture text and a deep link, and acceptable reference formats. This goes beyond a simple phrase and gives useful context about how the tool behaves, though it stops short of detailing error behavior or limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second gives usage context, and the third provides reference format examples. There is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the purpose, when to use it, the default translation, the output (text + deep link), and expected input format. No important context appears missing.

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

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

The schema already covers the single parameter 'reference' with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact accepted formats ('John 14:6' or 'Psalm 23:1-3'), which is more comprehensive than the schema's single example. This additional semantic guidance justifies a score above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('Bible verse'), and it elaborates on the output (Scripture text with deep link). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning use cases for Scripture lookup and verse citations, which sibling tools like doxa_encourage and doxa_way_movement likely do not cover.

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

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

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool ('any Christian, biblical, Scripture, verse lookup, or devotional citation task where a clickable verse link matters'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the full exclusion guidance seen in a 5-score.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns all nine movements, or one if specified'), lists the movement names, and implies read-only via the verb 'Get.' It lacks explicit statements about side effects or error conditions, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the resource and listing values, suggesting use cases, and explaining return behavior. The description is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and contains no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), so the description does not need to explain complex return structures. It fully specifies what is returned, lists all valid values, and gives context for usage, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

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

The input schema already documents the 'movement' parameter thoroughly with an enum and description stating optionality and behavior (100% coverage). The description mirrors this information without adding extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the nine movements of The Doxa Way.' It enumerates all nine movements, making the scope explicit, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doxa_encourage and doxa_scripture by focusing on a discipleship framework rather than encouragement or scripture retrieval.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for faith journey mapping, Bible-grounded spiritual growth, or Christian encouragement context.' However, it doesn't mention alternative tools or 'when not to use' conditions, which would warrant a 5.

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