Skip to main content
Glama
sunilgentyala

aegis-integrity

by sunilgentyala
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

aegis_compare_papers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two papers directly to detect overlap or self-plagiarism, such as a conference paper versus its journal extension, without needing a corpus.

Instructions

Compare two papers directly for overlap or self-plagiarism.

Useful for a conference paper vs. its journal extension, or two versions
of the same manuscript. Needs no corpus.

Args:
    file1: Absolute path to the first paper.
    file2: Absolute path to the second paper.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file1Yes
file2Yes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful 'needs no corpus' constraint (no indexing prerequisite), but says nothing about runtime cost, file size limits, or how overlap is reported — though the output schema carries the return shape.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact use-case line, then an Args block. Efficient overall, with only mild redundancy between the first line and the Args list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-path comparison tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, use cases, and both parameters — everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only minor gaps in edge-case behavior remain.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (only bare titles 'File1'/'File2'), so the description must compensate — and it does by documenting both required params and adding the meaningful detail that each must be an 'Absolute path', which the schema omits entirely.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compare two papers') plus the exact intent ('overlap or self-plagiarism'), which cleanly separates it from single-paper siblings like aegis_analyze_paper and aegis_check_citations.

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?

Names concrete scenarios (conference paper vs. journal extension, two versions of a manuscript) and clarifies it 'needs no corpus', implicitly routing the agent away from corpus/index-based siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives.

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