HeyClaude — Claude & AI workflow directory

submission.duplicates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search generated registry artifacts for likely duplicate entries before a user opens a submission PR.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Tool or resource name to search for near-duplicates.
`slug`	No	Slug to check for an exact existing entry.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of duplicate candidates to return (1–10).
`title`	No	Display title to search for near-duplicates.
`docsUrl`	No	Documentation URL to check for duplicates.
`category`	No	Category to scope the duplicate search.
`githubUrl`	No	GitHub repository URL to check for duplicates.
`sourceUrl`	No	Primary source URL to check against existing entries.
`sourceUrls`	No	Multiple source URLs to check (e.g. GitHub repo + docs site).
`websiteUrl`	No	Homepage or product URL to check for duplicates.
`brandDomain`	No	Brand's canonical domain (e.g. 'example.com') to check for duplicates.
`downloadUrl`	No	Download or release URL to check for duplicates.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`policy`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the search operation, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance transparency further.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite 12 parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient given the rich annotations and schema. It lacks specifics about the search algorithm (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), but the core function and timing are clear.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 description uses a specific verb 'Search' on 'generated registry artifacts for likely duplicate entries' and provides context 'before a user opens a submission PR', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like registry.search or submission.validate.

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?

The description explicitly says 'before a user opens a submission PR', indicating when to use it during the submission workflow. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context from sibling tools sufficiently implies this is a pre-submission duplicate check.

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

All HeyClaude — Claude & AI workflow directory tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, especially with clear prefixes. However, there is some overlap between entry.safety and entry.trust (both deal with safety/trust metadata), and between registry.recommend and registry.plan (both provide recommendations). The descriptions help differentiate but some ambiguity remains.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix (entry, install, registry, submission) followed by a descriptive noun, all lowercase with underscores. This makes the surface predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

27 tools is slightly high but reasonable given the broad scope of the HeyClaude registry, which includes browsing, recommending, installing guidance, and submission preparation. The count is appropriate for the server's purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is comprehensive, covering search, detail, comparison, safety/trust analysis, install setup for multiple clients, recommendation, and a full submission pipeline (validation, review, schema, etc.). There are no obvious gaps for the intended read-only registry directory functionality.

submission.duplicates

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources