Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

find_duplicates

Find potential duplicate records in a directory by comparing specified attributes using exact and fuzzy matching. Returns duplicate pairs with match percentage.

Instructions

Найти потенциальные дубли в справочнике по указанным реквизитам. Точное и нечёткое сравнение. Возвращает пары с процентом совпадения.

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": {
      "full_name": "<full_name>",
      "attributes": "<attributes>"
    },
    "name": "find_duplicates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
full_nameYesПолное имя справочника (например: Справочник.Контрагенты)
thresholdNoПорог совпадения 0–100 (по умолчанию 90)
attributesYesРеквизиты для сравнения через запятую (например: ИНН,Наименование)
max_resultsNoМакс. пар дублей (по умолчанию 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions exact/fuzzy matching and return format but omits side effects, performance, or safety details. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only briefly mentions output. Lacks details on error handling, performance, or algorithm details. Adequate for basic use but could be more complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds context about matching type and output but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool finds potential duplicates using exact and fuzzy comparison, and returns pairs with match percentage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_by_code or find_by_name which focus on single entries.

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?

The description implies use for finding duplicates but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor when not to use. Lacks context for optimal usage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools