duplicacy-mcp
Duplicacy-MCP is a monitoring server that exposes Duplicacy backup metrics (sourced from a Prometheus exporter) through an MCP interface. It provides the following capabilities:
get_backup_status: Retrieve the current backup status for a specific Duplicacy snapshot.get_backup_history: Fetch last backup details for a specific snapshot, including files backed up, bytes transferred, duration, and exit code.list_snapshots: List all unique Duplicacy snapshot IDs known to the exporter.get_prune_status: Check the status of prune operations, with an optional filter for a specific storage target.Resources: Browse read-only backup data via
duplicacy://status,duplicacy://progress, andduplicacy://healthfor a high-level view of backup health and progress.
Integrates with a Prometheus exporter to monitor Duplicacy backup metrics, enabling the tracking of backup status, progress, health, history, and snapshot lists.
What you get
Type | What for | MCP URI / Tool id |
Resources | Browse backup status, progress, and health read-only |
|
Tools | Query backup history, list snapshots, and check prune status |
|
Everything is exposed over a single JSON-RPC endpoint (/mcp).
LLMs / Agents can: initialize -> readResource -> listTools -> callTool ... and so on.
Related MCP server: duplicati-mcp
Quick-start (Docker Compose)
services:
duplicacy-mcp:
image: drumsergio/duplicacy-mcp:0.1.0
ports:
- "127.0.0.1:8080:8080"
environment:
- DUPLICACY_EXPORTER_URL=http://duplicacy-exporter:9750Security note: The HTTP transport listens on
127.0.0.1:8080by default. If you need to expose it on a network, place it behind a reverse proxy with authentication.
Install via npm (stdio transport)
npx duplicacy-mcpOr install globally:
npm install -g duplicacy-mcp
duplicacy-mcpThis downloads the pre-built Go binary from GitHub Releases for your platform and runs it with stdio transport. Requires at least one published release.
Local build
git clone https://github.com/GeiserX/duplicacy-mcp
cd duplicacy-mcp
# (optional) create .env from the sample
cp .env.example .env && $EDITOR .env
go run ./cmd/serverConfiguration
Variable | Default | Description |
|
| Duplicacy Prometheus exporter URL (without trailing /) |
|
| HTTP listen address (Docker sets |
| (empty = HTTP) | Set to |
Put them in a .env file (from .env.example) or set them in the environment.
Testing
Tested with Inspector and it is currently fully working. Before making a PR, make sure this MCP server behaves well via this medium.
Example configuration for client LLMs
{
"schema_version": "v1",
"name_for_human": "Duplicacy-MCP",
"name_for_model": "duplicacy_mcp",
"description_for_human": "Monitor Duplicacy backup status, progress, and health via Prometheus metrics.",
"description_for_model": "Interact with a Duplicacy backup monitoring server that reads metrics from a Prometheus exporter. First call initialize, then reuse the returned session id in header \"Mcp-Session-Id\" for every other call. Use readResource to fetch URIs that begin with duplicacy://. Use listTools to discover available actions and callTool to execute them.",
"auth": { "type": "none" },
"api": {
"type": "jsonrpc-mcp",
"url": "http://localhost:8080/mcp",
"init_method": "initialize",
"session_header": "Mcp-Session-Id"
},
"contact_email": "acsdesk@protonmail.com",
"legal_info_url": "https://github.com/GeiserX/duplicacy-mcp/blob/main/LICENSE"
}Credits
Duplicacy -- lock-free deduplication cloud backup
duplicacy-exporter -- Prometheus exporter for Duplicacy
MCP-GO -- modern MCP implementation
GoReleaser -- painless multi-arch releases
Maintainers
Contributing
Feel free to dive in! Open an issue or submit PRs.
Duplicacy-MCP follows the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct.
Other MCP Servers by GeiserX
cashpilot-mcp — Passive income monitoring
genieacs-mcp — TR-069 device management
lynxprompt-mcp — AI configuration blueprints
pumperly-mcp — Fuel and EV charging prices
telegram-archive-mcp — Telegram message archive
Related Projects
Project | Description |
Docker-based encrypted dual-storage backup automation using Duplicacy CLI | |
Real-time Prometheus exporter for Duplicacy backups | |
Home Assistant custom integration for monitoring Duplicacy backups | |
Container image and Helm chart for running Duplicacy on Kubernetes |
Available Tools
4 toolsget_backup_historyCDestructive
Get the last backup details for a specific Duplicacy snapshot (files, bytes, duration, exit code)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot_id | Yes | The snapshot ID to query history for |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot_id | Yes | The snapshot ID to query status for |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storage_target | No | (optional) Filter prune status to a specific storage target |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
An MCP server that provides an API to LLMs to manage their JumpCloud resources.
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
MCP server exposing the Backtest360 engine API as tools for AI agents.
MCP server providing access to the Scorecard API to evaluate and optimize LLM systems.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables Large Language Models to retrieve, analyze, and query metric data from Prometheus databases through pre-defined routes.34MIT
- 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
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GeiserX/duplicacy-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server