BibTeX Reference Manager MCP

Find duplicate entries

dedupe_entries

Read-only

Detect duplicate references by DOI, cite key, or similar title, then return grouped keep/remove decisions and a cleaned BibTeX list without modifying your files.

Instructions

Find duplicate references by matching DOI, by the same cite key, and by similar titles (the years must not clash). Each group says which entry to keep, the one with the most fields, and which to remove. Also returns the list as BibTeX with the extra copies dropped. Example: two entries with the same DOI, one with 3 fields and one with 6, give one group that keeps the entry with 6 fields and lists the other under remove. Your files are not changed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	The reference list as text: BibTeX, RIS or CSL JSON.
`format`	No	The format of the text. Defaults to auto, which looks at the text to decide.
`title_threshold`	No	How alike two titles must be to count as the same, from 0.5 to 1. Defaults to 0.9.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	Yes	How many entries were read.
`groups`	Yes
`unique`	Yes	How many entries are left once the duplicates are dropped.
`deduplicated_bibtex`	Yes	The list as BibTeX without the removed copies.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces that with 'Your files are not changed.' It goes further by disclosing the output shape – groups with a keep/remove decision and a deduplicated BibTeX list – plus the keep-the-entry-with-most-fields tie-break rule, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 matching rules and non-mutation guarantee are front-loaded, and the worked example clarifies the tie-break rule. The example restates what the preceding sentences already say, so it is slightly redundant, but overall the text is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description still summarizes the group structure and BibTeX output. It covers matching rules, tie-breaking, and non-mutation; only minor gaps remain, such as how format auto-detection behaves or when to adjust the title threshold.

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 text, format, and title_threshold. The description alludes to title similarity matching but adds no syntax, threshold guidance, or format-detection detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Find duplicate references') and enumerates the exact matching rules: DOI, shared cite key, and similar titles with non-clashing years. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lint_entries or parse_bibliography, which do not report duplicate groups.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The context of use is implied by the matching criteria, so an agent can infer this is the tool for spotting duplicate entries. However, it never states when to prefer it over lint_entries or parse_bibliography, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server