A
licenseNot graded
qualityF
maintenanceAn MCP server that enables Large Language Models to retrieve, analyze, and query metric data from Prometheus databases through pre-defined routes.
33
MIT
duplicacy-mcp
by GeiserX
Monitor Duplicacy backup metrics through MCP by querying backup status, history, prune status, snapshots, and reading health-related resources.
Get current backup status for a specified Duplicacy snapshot ID.
Get last backup details for a snapshot, including files, bytes, duration, and exit code.
Get prune operation status, optionally filtered by storage target.
List all unique Duplicacy snapshot IDs known to the exporter.
Browse read-only resources:
duplicacy://status,duplicacy://progress, andduplicacy://health.Access via HTTP JSON-RPC at
/mcpor stdio throughnpx duplicacy-mcp.
Integrates with a Prometheus exporter to monitor Duplicacy backup metrics, enabling the tracking of backup status, progress, health, history, and snapshot lists.
Features
Reads the metrics of duplicacy-exporter and serves them over MCP.
Resources
duplicacy://status,duplicacy://progressandduplicacy://healthfor read-only browsing.Tools
get_backup_status,get_backup_history,list_snapshotsandget_prune_status.One JSON-RPC endpoint (
/mcp) over HTTP, or stdio throughnpx duplicacy-mcp.Listens on
127.0.0.1:8080by default. Put a reverse proxy with authentication in front before exposing it.Ships as Go binaries for several platforms (GoReleaser), a Docker image and an npm wrapper.
Related MCP server: duplicati-mcp
Quick start
docker run -d -p 127.0.0.1:8080:8080 -e DUPLICACY_EXPORTER_URL=http://duplicacy-exporter:9750 drumsergio/duplicacy-mcp:v0.1.0That serves http://127.0.0.1:8080/mcp. For a client that starts the server itself over stdio, use the npm package in an mcpServers block:
{
"mcpServers": {
"duplicacy": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "duplicacy-mcp"],
"env": { "DUPLICACY_EXPORTER_URL": "http://localhost:9750" }
}
}
}Compose, a global npm install and a local build are in Getting started.
Documentation
Getting started: Docker Compose, npm, local build, first run
Configuration: environment variables, client config for stdio and HTTP
Usage: resources and tools
Development: testing with Inspector, credits, contributing
Related projects: the Duplicacy family, other MCP servers, registry listings
Related projects
Part of the Duplicacy family: duplicacy-exporter, duplicacy-cli-cron, duplicacy-ha, duplicacy-container.
License
Available Tools
4 toolsget_backup_historyCDestructive
Get the last backup details for a specific Duplicacy snapshot (files, bytes, duration, exit code)
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot_id | Yes | The snapshot ID to query history for |
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: Description uses 'Get' implying read-only operation, but annotations mark destructiveHint=true without any warning about side effects or destructive behavior in the text.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Appropriately concise, front-loaded with action verb, and parenthetically lists return fields efficiently.
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?
Compensates for missing output schema by listing return fields, but fails to address the destructive annotation or explain what 'last backup' means versus current status.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, meets baseline; description implies the snapshot parameter by mentioning 'specific Duplicacy snapshot' but adds no additional semantic context beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves last backup details with specific fields (files, bytes, duration, exit code) for Duplicacy snapshots, though doesn't differentiate from sibling get_backup_status.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_backup_statusBDestructive
Get the current backup status for a specific Duplicacy snapshot
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot_id | Yes | The snapshot ID to query status for |
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions 'Duplicacy' for domain context but critically fails to explain why a 'get' operation has destructiveHint=true, which is highly unexpected and risky.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and target, no redundant words.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool but gaps remain around the destructive behavior and whether status refers to active operations or snapshot metadata.
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?
Baseline score since schema has 100% coverage; description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'backup status', with 'current' distinguishing it from sibling get_backup_history, though 'status' semantics (running vs completed) remain ambiguous.
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 vs list_snapshots (which also retrieves snapshot info) or get_backup_history; lacks when-not exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_prune_statusCDestructive
Get the prune operation status, optionally filtered by storage target
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storage_target | No | (optional) Filter prune status to a specific storage target |
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: Description implies read-only operation ('Get'), but annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false without explanation for this discrepancy.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though extreme brevity contributes to missing behavioral transparency and output details.
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?
Lacks description of return values (critical given no output schema exists), but adequately covers the single parameter and low complexity of the operation.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is met; description mentions 'optionally filtered' but adds no semantic depth beyond schema's '(optional) Filter' text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (get prune operation status) and filtering capability, distinguishing from backup/snapshot siblings, though assumes user knows what 'prune' entails.
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 versus get_backup_status or other status tools; lacks 'when-not' or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_snapshotsBDestructive
List all unique Duplicacy snapshot IDs known to the exporter
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: Description implies read-only operation ('List'), but annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false without explanation.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys action and target; no extraneous text.
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?
Lacks output schema description (return values undefined) and fails to explain the destructive behavior flagged in annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present, meeting baseline requirement; no additional parameter context needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb (List) and resource (snapshot IDs), mentions 'Duplicacy' to distinguish domain, and functionally differentiates from sibling status/history getters.
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 versus get_backup_history or other retrieval tools; no exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
get_backup_history - First observed
get_backup_status - First observed
get_prune_status - First observed
list_snapshots
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Scored across 4 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Tools have clearly distinct purposes, though get_backup_history and get_backup_status both target specific snapshots with similar naming patterns (historical vs current status). The descriptions adequately clarify the distinction between completed backup details and ongoing operations.
Naming Consistency5/5
All four tools follow a strict verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_backup_history, get_backup_status, get_prune_status, list_snapshots). The naming convention is uniform and predictable throughout the set.
Tool Count4/5
Four tools is reasonable for a focused observability server interfacing with a Duplicacy exporter, providing essential monitoring capabilities without excessive scope. However, the read-only nature limits the server's overall utility for backup operations.
Completeness3/5
As a monitoring-specific server, it covers basic backup status, history, and prune operations, but lacks storage metrics, verification/check status, and error log access. For general Duplicacy management, the absence of backup execution, restore, or configuration tools represents notable functional gaps.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
An MCP server that provides an API to LLMs to manage their JumpCloud resources.
MCP server for OpenAI API (chat completions, image generation, embeddings) via AceDataCloud
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
MCP server exposing the Backtest360 engine API as tools for AI agents.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for managing Duplicati backups from an LLM.17MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA lean MCP server that provides LLM agents with transparent access to multiple Prometheus instances for metrics analysis and SRE operations.4GPL 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for administering Duplicacy backups via the duplicacy-web API, enabling AI clients to inspect and manage storages, repositories, schedules, and jobs.15MIT