Doxa MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It honestly describes the output as a short screenshot-shareable response with scripture references, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the output characteristics. Every phrase earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's cultural framework and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output format, and movement context. However, it lacks constraints on usage length or safety considerations.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the movement parameter's role in The Doxa Way and that if absent the server infers it, which goes beyond the schema.

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 generates Doxa-voice encouragement for a user's situation, returns a short screenshot-shareable response with scripture references, and is anchored in The Doxa Way. This distinguishes it from siblings like doxa_scripture and doxa_way_movement.

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 implies usage for encouragement but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools are not mentioned in the description.

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, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the default translation and reference format, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. Partial transparency, adequate but not complete.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, and the second provides critical format details. Every word earns its place.

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 has no output schema, so the description should fully describe the return value. It mentions a 'Doxa context link' but does not clarify whether the response includes the verse text, the link, or both. This gap leaves ambiguity about what the agent receives, making it incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 covers the reference parameter fully (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the standard human form with examples and the default translation, which goes beyond the schema's minimal description. This extra context is helpful for correct invocation.

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 looks up a Bible verse and mentions the Doxa context link, plus specifies the reference format and default translation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (doxa_encourage, doxa_way_movement) which have different verbs, making the purpose clear.

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 gives context (Doxa context, reference format, default translation) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied for Bible verse lookups, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes a read-only operation ('Get', 'Returns') and specifies the output content. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or other behaviors, but the nature of the tool is simple and non-destructive.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose, lists the movements, and explains the parameter behavior. Every part is informative with no redundancy. It effectively uses the space.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use it. It explains the return behavior ('Returns all movements or one if specified'). No further information is necessary for an agent to invoke it 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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds the list of movements and the concept of the framework, but the parameter's behavior (optional, enum, return all if absent) is already fully covered by the schema. No additional semantic details are provided.

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 retrieves 'The Doxa Way' framework and lists all nine movements. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (doxa_encourage, doxa_scripture), the context implies distinct purposes.

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 implies usage for retrieving the framework but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The context is clear but lacks directive clarity.

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