Scholar Library

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_duplicate_candidates

Read-only

Find duplicate candidates by conflicting identifiers or similar titles, returning up to 100 without auto-merging versions or attachments.

Instructions

查找同标识冲突或标题相似的候选，不自动合并不同版本或附件。最多比较最近1000条，候选上限100。

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "find_duplicate_candidates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds behavioral value beyond them: it states the tool does not auto-merge, caps comparison to the 1000 most recent records, and limits candidates to 100. These operational limits are genuinely useful context not present in the structured fields.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by scope and limits. No filler sentences; every clause carries information.

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?

For a read-only finder with no output schema, the description covers what is found and the comparison caps, but does not explain what a 'candidate' result contains or how the caller should act on it. Adequate but leaves the return/next-step semantics to inference.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single required parameter project_id, adding no meaning, scope, or format for it. Although the parameter is fairly self-evident from its name, the description fails to compensate for the zero schema coverage.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource (find duplicate candidates) and defines what qualifies: identifier conflicts or similar titles. It also clarifies the boundary that it does not auto-merge versions/attachments, which distinguishes it from a hypothetical merge tool. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated purpose (finding duplicates) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named (e.g., resolve_identifier, verify_work, list_records). The 'does not auto-merge' clause gives a boundary but is not a routing instruction.

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