Lists .txt duplication files recursively and filters results by filename without decoding every file, enabling targeted searches of Garry's Mod builds.
List .txt duplications recursively, filtered by filename, without decoding every file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: recursive traversal, filename filtering, and the important performance trait of not decoding every file. Pagination and result ordering remain undisclosed.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. The key scope and performance detail are stated efficiently.
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?
The description covers the high-level operation and one behavioral trait, and the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, with 0% parameter description coverage, omitting limit/offset pagination semantics leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only hints that filtering is by filename, likely mapping to 'query', but provides no explanation of 'limit' or 'offset', their pagination behavior, or the 500 maximum.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'List .txt duplications recursively, filtered by filename.' It is distinguishable from read/inspect/write siblings by implying a listing operation, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.
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?
The use case is implied as listing duplicate .txt files, especially with filename filtering and no full file decoding. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over inspect_dupe, read_dupe, or search_models, nor any stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.