Doxa MCP

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

Discloses output format (short, screenshot-shareable, Scripture-anchored, movement-tagged) and constraints (no anthropomorphism), though no annotations exist to contradict. Could specify 'short' length more precisely.

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 with key information front-loaded; no unnecessary 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?

Adequately covers purpose, input, output, and constraints for a simple generation tool. Minor gap: expected response length not specified.

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?

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions; the tool description adds context by noting movement can be inferred and situation should be 1-3 sentences, enhancing understanding beyond 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 Christian encouragement in the Doxa voice for a described situation, differentiating 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?

Implicitly suggests use for encouragement given a situation, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or what contexts are inappropriate.

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 must disclose behavior. It mentions returning text and a deep link, and defaults to BSB, but does not specify if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The implied read-only behavior is acceptable but not explicit.

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 concise sentences: action, default, and use case with examples. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, default behavior, and formatting guidance. No gaps relative to complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (reference) described. The description adds value by stating the default translation (BSB) and providing reference format examples, which enriches the schema's minimal description.

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 returns text with a deep link, specifying the default translation and use cases. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools (doxa_encourage, doxa_way_movement) through domain specificity.

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 explicitly says 'Use for any Christian, biblical, Scripture, verse lookup, or devotional citation task where a clickable verse link matters.' While it does not provide negative examples or alternatives, the use case is well-defined.

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 present, so the description carries full burden. It states the return behavior (all nine or one), but does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or dependencies. The behavior is simple enough that this is adequate but not thorough.

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 superfluous words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and lists all movements, the second provides usage context. 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and suggests suitable contexts. It could include a note about read-only behavior, but the overall completeness is high.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of the optional parameter ('if absent, returns all 9') and listing the enum values in narrative form. This aids selection without repeating schema details.

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 nine movements of The Doxa Way, lists them explicitly, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (doxa_encourage, doxa_scripture) by its specific focus on the framework's movements. The verb 'Get' and the noun 'movements' are concrete.

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?

Provides context for use cases like faith journey mapping and spiritual growth, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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