MCP Station

Check your MCP servers for matching tool definitions

check_overlap

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when the user has several MCP servers connected or planned and wants to know if any duplicate each other. Give the exact registry names of the MCP servers you connect (or plan to). Returns which of them share tool definitions, a remote endpoint or a registry description, compared on the same measurement day, and how many other listings share each one's tool definitions. Facts only, not a judgement. If two share tool definitions, clients that load tool definitions into context may load them twice.

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": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "check_overlap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value beyond that: results are 'facts only, not a judgement,' are snapshotted to a 'same measurement day,' and it explains the downstream consequence of duplicate tool definitions being loaded twice into context.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the return contract, then a consequence note. Slightly sentence-heavy but every clause (measurement-day caveat, facts-only framing) adds information rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return contents (which servers share definitions, endpoint, description, measurement day, count of other sharing listings) and the practical implication. Minor gaps remain (e.g., the 50-name cap and exact name format), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by stressing that names must be the 'exact registry names' of servers you connect or plan to, which is the key semantics for avoiding mismatches. Baseline for 0 params is 4; here the reinforcement justifies holding at 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check whether MCP servers duplicate each other') plus exactly what is compared (tool definitions, remote endpoint, registry description). Clearly distinct from siblings like get_server or search_tools, which fetch rather than compare.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use when the user has several MCP servers connected or planned and wants to know if any duplicate each other,' plus an input instruction to supply exact registry names. It doesn't name sibling alternatives to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All MCP Station tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?