WritersLogic verifiable AI agents

syndication-hint

Detect near-duplicate passages (syndicated or copied text) so repeated sources are not counted as independent — Compares up to 30 passages an agent collected and reports which pairs share word-shingle content (Jaccard and containment), grouping them into clusters of probable copies so the number of independent sources can be stated honestly. Does not establish who copied whom, does not detect paraphrase or translation, and does not fetch anything; a high similarity is a hint that sources are not independent

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "passages": "<passages>"
    },
    "name": "syndication-hint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`passages`	Yes	Up to 30; 300000 characters in total.
`shingleWords`	No	Words per shingle. Default 5.
`jaccardThreshold`	No	Pairs at or above this Jaccard similarity are flagged. Default 0.5.
`containmentThreshold`	No	Pairs where this share of the smaller passage's shingles appear in the other are flagged (catches an excerpt of a longer copy). Default 0.8.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the method (word-shingle Jaccard and containment), the grouping behavior (clusters of probable copies), that nothing is fetched, and — critically — that high similarity is only a hint, not proof of copying. That last caveat prevents the most likely misuse of the result.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose and the count-honesty motivation are front-loaded, and the em-dash clause carries the method before the caveats. It is a single dense sentence plus a limitations list, with no filler, though the sentence is long enough that an agent must parse multiple ideas at once.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a four-parameter, read-only computation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, method, scope limits, and the meaning of the result. What is slightly thin is the concrete return structure (fields per pair, cluster identifiers), which an agent must infer from prose.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with defaults and ranges already documented for shingleWords, jaccardThreshold, and containmentThreshold. The description adds conceptual framing ("share word-shingle content (Jaccard and containment)") and repeats the 30-passage cap, but adds no tuning guidance or interaction between the two thresholds. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The definition names a specific verb and resource ("Detect near-duplicate passages") and immediately glosses the concept ("syndicated or copied text"). It also states the output shape — which pairs share shingle content and how they cluster — so an agent knows exactly what comes back without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the motivating condition clearly: use this so repeated sources are not counted as independent when stating a source count. It also gives explicit exclusions (no provenance, no paraphrase, no translation, no fetching). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those out-of-scope cases, so it is clear context without full routing.

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

All WritersLogic verifiable AI agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?