A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceEnables live product search, price, stock, and spec queries across Flipkart and Amazon.in, with tools for comparing products and checking delivery availability.
12
1
MIT
TaskRail
Server Details
Delivered-price deals, cancel/refund paths, used-value comparisons, and compatibility checks.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 99.9% over 36 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Scored across 4 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool covers a distinct purpose: compatibility checking, new product deals, used alternatives, and task procedures. No overlap in functionality, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency4/5
All names use snake_case with a verb-noun pattern, e.g., check_products_compatibility, find_best_total_deal. Minor variance in noun phrase length (e.g., find_used_or_refurbished_alternatives is longer) but overall consistent.
Tool Count4/5
With only 4 tools, the set is compact but focused. It covers the core actions for product shopping and task guidance without unnecessary bloat. Could benefit from a broader scope, but count is reasonable for the niche.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover key product lifecycle phases: compatibility, new and used purchasing, and after-sales tasks. Missing general product search or reviews, but the core workflow (compare, buy, complete task) is well-served.
Available Tools
4 toolscheck_products_compatibilityAInspect
Check whether two exact products are compatible. Use for requests like “will this fit,” “does this work with,” “compatible with,” or “is an adapter needed?” It checks identifiers and source-backed specifications for accessories, parts, consumables, chargers, cables, mounts, batteries, computer components, and automotive parts.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vehicle_vin | No | Optional 17-character VIN for authoritative NHTSA vehicle identification | |
| required_use | No | Optional explanation of the intended use | |
| primary_product | Yes | The product, device, vehicle, or system the candidate must work with | |
| candidate_product | Yes | The accessory, part, consumable, adapter, or component being checked |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| confidence | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| source_names | Yes | |
| best_price_usd | No | |
| recommendation | Yes | |
| sources_failed | Yes | |
| sources_checked_count | Yes |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; description adds that it 'checks identifiers and source-backed specifications,' which enriches understanding of the tool's internal behavior. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, example queries, and scope. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a query tool with output schema present, description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what inputs are involved. No gaps given context signals (no enums, no nested objects).
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?
Schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'products compatibility' with clear examples like 'will this fit' and 'does this work with'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on deals, alternatives, or completion paths.
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?
Explicitly prescribes use cases ('will this fit,' 'compatible with') and lists covered categories (accessories, parts, etc.). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings are clearly unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_best_total_dealAInspect
Find the cheapest price and best deal for an exact new physical product. Use for requests like “where to buy,” “price comparison,” “lowest total cost including shipping,” or “is it in stock?” It resolves the model and variant, checks current offers, shipping, stock, delivery timing, and known mandatory fees.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Exact product name, model, and variant in the user's own words | |
| postal_code | No | US postal code for delivery price and availability |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| confidence | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| source_names | Yes | |
| best_price_usd | No | |
| recommendation | Yes | |
| sources_failed | Yes | |
| sources_checked_count | Yes |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds valuable context about what is checked (offers, shipping, stock, delivery, fees), but does not contradict annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the clear coverage of purpose, triggers, and checks, the description is fully adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 100%, and the description adds meaning to the 'product' parameter by specifying it should be 'in the user's own words', going beyond the schema's minimal description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('cheapest price and best deal') for 'exact new physical product', and lists example queries that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like find_used_or_refurbished_alternatives.
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 explicitly states use cases ('where to buy', 'price comparison', etc.) and what it resolves (model/variant, offers, shipping), but does not explicitly state when not to use it, relying on context from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_used_or_refurbished_alternativesAInspect
Find where to buy an exact product used, refurbished, or open box and decide whether the cheaper alternative is worth it. Use for requests like “buy used,” “refurbished,” “open box,” “cheaper alternative,” or “is used worth it?” It compares verified used options with the best new price, condition, returns, and warranty.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Exact product name, model, and variant to buy used or refurbished | |
| postal_code | No | US postal code for delivery price and availability | |
| minimum_savings_percent | No | Minimum savings that would make a used option worthwhile |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| confidence | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| source_names | Yes | |
| best_price_usd | No | |
| recommendation | Yes | |
| sources_failed | Yes | |
| sources_checked_count | Yes |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that the tool compares verified used options with the best new price, condition, returns, and warranty. It adds behavioral context (e.g., decision-making) that annotations alone do not cover. However, it could mention whether it provides purchase links or external site navigation.
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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and provide immediate usage context. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter count, full schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is complete. It explains the tool's decision aspect and when to invoke it, leaving no obvious gaps for an AI agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the three parameters clearly. The description does not add significant extra meaning to the parameters; it focuses on the tool's overall function. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: finding where to buy an exact product used/refurbished/open box and deciding if the cheaper alternative is worth it. It lists specific example queries and differentiates from sibling tools like find_best_total_deal, which likely focuses on new products.
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 explicit usage guidance with example requests like 'buy used' or 'is used worth it?'. It implies context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, which would make it stronger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_fastest_completion_pathAInspect
Find the fastest official way to complete a practical task. Use for requests like “how do I cancel,” “return an item,” “get a refund,” “file a warranty claim,” or “find the official form.” It returns ordered, source-backed steps and exact official links; it does not log in or submit the action.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | What the user needs to do, in ordinary language | |
| state | No | Optional two-letter US state code when rules or forms vary by state | |
| provider | Yes | Company, agency, service, or organization responsible for the task |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| confidence | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| source_names | Yes | |
| best_price_usd | No | |
| recommendation | Yes | |
| sources_failed | Yes | |
| sources_checked_count | Yes |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: returns ordered steps, exact official links, and does not log in or submit. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and examples immediately follow. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
Description covers essential behavior, and since the tool has an output schema, return values need not be detailed here. One minor gap: no mention of error handling or rate limits, but acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. Description reinforces that 'task' should be in ordinary language and 'state' is optional US code, but adds no significant new meaning beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it finds the fastest official way to complete a practical task, with examples like 'how do I cancel' or 'return an item'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., check_products_compatibility) by focusing on task completion rather than product comparison.
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?
Description explicitly lists example use cases and notes what the tool does not do (log in or submit action). However, it does not specify when alternatives like find_best_total_deal should be used, leaving some ambiguity.
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.
1 tool update
- Changed
check_products_compatibility1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / vehicle_vinAdded value: +{ + "description": "Optional 17-character VIN for authoritative NHTSA vehicle identification", + "pattern": "^[A-HJ-NPR-Z0-9]{17}$", + "type": "string" +}
4 tool updates
- First observed
check_products_compatibility - First observed
find_best_total_deal - First observed
find_used_or_refurbished_alternatives - First observed
get_fastest_completion_path
Related MCP Connectors
US return policies, price-match rules, discounts, deals and Amazon price verdicts. Read-only.
Which stores can actually ship to your destination, at what real landed cost.
Cross-merchant product search with real price history, comparisons, and demand signals.
Current retail deals by category and store, with buying guides. Affiliate links.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables users to compare and get recommendations across multiple supermarket products, combining curated specifications with realtime price and review lookups.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables searching and comparing product prices across major Indian quick-commerce and e-commerce platforms, ranking results by landed price, returning product links, storing price history, and providing 15–30 day price direction forecasts with best-buy recommendations.-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to create, compare, and track purchases with structured buying workflows, offer comparison, and merchant verification.5MIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.