Skip to main content
Glama
GeiserX

duplicacy-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Go
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Tools have clearly distinct purposes, though get_backup_history and get_backup_status both target specific snapshots with similar naming patterns (historical vs current status). The descriptions adequately clarify the distinction between completed backup details and ongoing operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All four tools follow a strict verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_backup_history, get_backup_status, get_prune_status, list_snapshots). The naming convention is uniform and predictable throughout the set.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is reasonable for a focused observability server interfacing with a Duplicacy exporter, providing essential monitoring capabilities without excessive scope. However, the read-only nature limits the server's overall utility for backup operations.

    Completeness3/5

    As a monitoring-specific server, it covers basic backup status, history, and prune operations, but lacks storage metrics, verification/check status, and error log access. For general Duplicacy management, the absence of backup execution, restore, or configuration tools represents notable functional gaps.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 23 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior1/5

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

    Annotation Contradiction: Description uses 'Get' implying read-only operation, but annotations mark destructiveHint=true without any warning about side effects or destructive behavior in the text.

    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?

    Appropriately concise, front-loaded with action verb, and parenthetically lists return fields efficiently.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Compensates for missing output schema by listing return fields, but fails to address the destructive annotation or explain what 'last backup' means versus current status.

    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?

    With 100% schema description coverage, meets baseline; description implies the snapshot parameter by mentioning 'specific Duplicacy snapshot' but adds no additional semantic context beyond schema.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    Clearly states it retrieves last backup details with specific fields (files, bytes, duration, exit code) for Duplicacy snapshots, though doesn't differentiate from sibling get_backup_status.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.

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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    Annotation Contradiction: Description implies read-only operation ('Get'), but annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false without explanation for this discrepancy.

    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?

    Single sentence is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though extreme brevity contributes to missing behavioral transparency and output details.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Lacks description of return values (critical given no output schema exists), but adequately covers the single parameter and low complexity of the operation.

    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?

    With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is met; description mentions 'optionally filtered' but adds no semantic depth beyond schema's '(optional) Filter' text.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    States specific action (get prune operation status) and filtering capability, distinguishing from backup/snapshot siblings, though assumes user knows what 'prune' entails.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance on when to use versus get_backup_status or other status tools; lacks 'when-not' or alternative recommendations.

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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    Annotation Contradiction: Description implies read-only operation ('List'), but annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false without explanation.

    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?

    Single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys action and target; no extraneous text.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Lacks output schema description (return values undefined) and fails to explain the destructive behavior flagged in annotations.

    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?

    Zero parameters present, meeting baseline requirement; no additional parameter context needed.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    Clear verb (List) and resource (snapshot IDs), mentions 'Duplicacy' to distinguish domain, and functionally differentiates from sibling status/history getters.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance on when to use versus get_backup_history or other retrieval tools; no exclusion criteria provided.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    Mentions 'Duplicacy' for domain context but critically fails to explain why a 'get' operation has destructiveHint=true, which is highly unexpected and risky.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with action and target, no redundant words.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Adequate for a single-parameter tool but gaps remain around the destructive behavior and whether status refers to active operations or snapshot metadata.

    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?

    Baseline score since schema has 100% coverage; description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'backup status', with 'current' distinguishing it from sibling get_backup_history, though 'status' semantics (running vs completed) remain ambiguous.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance on when to use vs list_snapshots (which also retrieves snapshot info) or get_backup_history; lacks when-not exclusions.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

duplicacy-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

duplicacy-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GeiserX/duplicacy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server