Coding Agent MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_duplicates

Find duplicate files by comparing content, name, or size. Specify directory, recursion, minimum file size, and file pattern to locate duplicates efficiently.

Instructions

Find duplicate files based on content or name

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_duplicates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`directory`	No	Directory to search in	.
`method`	No	Duplicate detection method	content
`recursive`	No	Search recursively
`minSize`	No	Minimum file size to consider (bytes)
`filePattern`	No	File pattern to include (glob)	*

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, performance implications, or file access requirements. It is limited to the basic function.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, but it is too brief and includes inaccuracies. Conciseness should not sacrifice accuracy or completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should elaborate on how duplicates are grouped, the output format, and limitations. It fails to provide sufficient context for correct tool usage.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description adds no value beyond the schema and contradicts it by omitting the 'size' method from the enum. With 100% schema coverage, the description should enrich understanding, but it instead provides misleading information.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool finds duplicate files based on content or name, but the input schema includes a 'size' method, making the description inaccurate. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_files'.

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 this tool vs alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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