ogarniai_get_document_duplicatesFind duplicate purchase documents by providing a document ID. Get suggestions with confidence scores to spot potential duplicates.
Get duplicate suggestions for a specific purchase document.
Args:
id (string): Document ID (UUID format)
Returns: JSON with duplicate document suggestions and confidence scores
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID (UUID format) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format ('JSON with duplicate document suggestions and confidence scores'), which is useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as possible empty results or data sources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and cleanly structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers the key elements: what it operates on and what it returns. Since there is no output schema, the explicit return summary is helpful, though alternative-tool guidance is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 the single 'id' parameter. The description restates it as 'Document ID (UUID format)' and adds the purchase-document context, but it adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Get duplicate suggestions') on a specific resource ('a specific purchase document'). It is distinct from generic document retrieval, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_dedup_suggestions' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ogarniai_list_dedup_suggestions or ogarniai_get_document. The phrase 'for a specific purchase document' implies per-document usage, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.