Retrieve duplicate place reports to review and resolve overlapping venue entries. Filter by status or place ID to manage pending, merged, or rejected duplicates.
Get a list of duplicate place reports. API token required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Limit | |
| offset | No | Offset | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| place_id | No | Filter by place ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the authentication requirement ('API token required') and the 'Get' phrasing implies a read-only listing, but it does not describe response shape, pagination, or default behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single front-loaded sentence containing exactly the needed information: the operation, the resource, and the auth requirement. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential context but leaves gaps around response format and pagination defaults. It is minimally viable but could be more complete for an agent that needs to interpret the result.
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 every parameter (limit, offset, status, place_id). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 operation ('Get a list') on a specific resource ('duplicate place reports'), which is distinct from the mutation siblings (report_duplicate, resolve_duplicate, merge_duplicate). An agent can immediately tell this is the read/list operation.
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 description implies the tool should be used when the caller needs to retrieve duplicate place reports, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over siblings or mention exclusions. The only additional guidance is the API token requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage discriminator.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.