Doxa MCP

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

Annotations only cover safety flags (destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds real behavioral context: a short screenshot-shareable output, BSV as the translation, movement tagging, and explicit style constraints ('no anthropomorphism, no AI companion framing'). It does not explain the non-idempotent/readOnlyHint=false semantics, but that is a minor gap.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the output contract and constraints. Slightly overloaded with the full nine-item movement list, which the schema already carries, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return value (short, shareable, Scripture-anchored, movement-tagged) and the voice constraints. For a 2-parameter generation tool this is nearly complete; only the sibling-routing and non-idempotency nuances are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the enum. The description reinforces the nine-movement vocabulary and notes inference when movement is absent, matching the schema's own statement that the server infers, but adds no format or syntax beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate Christian encouragement in the Doxa voice for the situation a user describes,' plus the anchoring source (Berean Standard Bible) and the output shape. It is clearly distinct from a raw scripture lookup, but it never names its siblings doxa_scripture or doxa_way_movement, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for the situation a user describes,' which tells the agent this is the situation-driven tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus doxa_scripture or doxa_way_movement, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., when a movement should be supplied vs. inferred).

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the default translation (BSB, public domain) and that a deep link is returned, both of which matter for output interpretation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage context, then format guidance. The usage sentence is slightly listy but each clause earns its place by aiding routing.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, return shape, and accepted input format. Nothing essential for correct invocation is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by showing the accepted reference format including a range example ('Psalm 23:1-3'), which the schema's single example does not cover.

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 states a specific verb (look up), resource (Bible verse), and the return value (Scripture text plus a deep link to its Doxa Bible page). An agent can immediately tell this apart from a generic search or encouragement tool.

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?

It gives a clear usage context ('any Christian, biblical, Scripture, verse lookup, or devotional citation task where a clickable verse link matters'), which is stronger than implied usage. However, it never names or contrasts with the siblings (doxa_encourage, doxa_way_movement), so the agent must infer routing on its own.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations don't carry: the return shape ('all nine movements, or one if specified') — important since there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose; the enumeration of nine movement names is somewhat long but is functional content, not filler. No redundant boilerplate.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the domain, intended use cases, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum is fully self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description only confirms the same all-vs-one behavior already stated in the parameter's own description, adding no syntax or semantics 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the nine movements of The Doxa Way'), then enumerates all nine movements by name and identifies the framework as a biblical Christian discipleship model. An agent can immediately tell this is a reference/content lookup tool rather than an action tool.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases ('faith journey mapping, Bible-grounded spiritual growth, or Christian encouragement context'), which gives clear context for selection. However, it never names or contrasts the siblings (doxa_encourage, doxa_scripture), so an agent facing 'encouragement' intent has no routing guidance.

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