lnkz-mcp

Find near-duplicate conversations

find_duplicates

Read-only

Identify duplicate conversations by detecting heavy transcript overlap, helping you spot the same chat relayed through multiple clients.

Instructions

Reports conversations whose transcripts overlap heavily, which happens whenever the same chat is relayed through more than one client.

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": "find_duplicates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`threshold`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a read-only operation, and the description does not add behavioral details beyond that. It does not mention output format, performance implications, or any potential side effects, but the read-only nature is consistent.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function without unnecessary verbosity. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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?

While the tool's purpose is clear, the description lacks details about the output structure (e.g., whether it returns conversation IDs, scores, or grouped results). Given the absent output schema, this omission leaves some ambiguity about what the caller receives.

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?

The input schema defines limit and threshold with ranges and defaults, but the description does not explain their meaning. For instance, 'threshold' likely refers to a similarity threshold, but this is not stated. The schema alone does not convey the semantic role of these parameters.

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's purpose: it reports conversations with heavily overlapping transcripts, specifically for cases where the same chat is relayed through multiple clients. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_conversations or list_conversations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a concrete scenario ('whenever the same chat is relayed through more than one client') that signals when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention any conditions that would make other tools more appropriate.

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