find_duplicatesIdentify duplicate contacts in your file by grouping similar rows, explaining why they match, and leaving the original data unchanged.
Group rows that look like the same person and explain why, without changing the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| threshold | No | 0-1; lower finds more, with more false positives |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key read-only behavior ('without changing the file') and hints at the reasoning output ('explain why'), but it omits other behaviors such as fuzzy matching sensitivity, threshold effect, or how the limit applies. This is a minimal disclosure, though not contradictory.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraint. No redundant words or filler.
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?
With no output schema and four parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output format (beyond 'explain why'), nor does it clarify how to specify fields, the meaning of limit, or how threshold works beyond the schema's minimal note. An agent would need to infer too much.
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 only 25% (only 'threshold' has a description). The description adds no parameter-level detail, failing to explain 'file', 'limit', or the 'fields' object. Since the schema is sparse, the description should compensate but does not.
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 clearly states the tool groups rows that look like the same person and explains why, while explicitly noting it does not change the file. This distinguishes it from a modification tool like dedupe_csv, though it does not name sibling tools directly. The verb 'Group' is specific enough.
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 phrase 'without changing the file' implies this is for analysis rather than modification, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like dedupe_csv or compare_records. The context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.