Get the nine movements of The Doxa Way, a biblical Christian discipleship framework: Hear, Discern, Test, Record, Remember, Engage, Trust, Fight, Endure. Use for faith journey mapping, Bible-grounded spiritual growth, or Christian encouragement context. Returns all nine movements, or one if specified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| movement | No | Optional. Get a single movement by id. If absent, returns all 9. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
